The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Merridew
Ottava
post Wed 16th May 2012, 1:17am
Post #1


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



What does Merridew have on so many Arbs? We know that John Vandenberg and Risker bent over backwards to not only protect Jack but encourage his absolutely disruptive behavior. But looking over this is revolting. The user disrupts thousands of articles, has dozens of socks that harass people, and breaks every policy that would get anyone else banned. Jack has not only destroyed articles but chased off legitimate content editors or used his socks to help cheer on bans.

AGK, Floquenbean, etc., all say things that are worthy of banning there. They are justifying the worst behavior, and that is like saying we should let a pyromaniac have as much access to gasoline and matches as possible. It is really, really irresponsible.

AGK, what the fuck is wrong with you? You are here. You aren't able to defend yourself, so I don't expect a response. But don't you feel any shame? You have kept many good people banned, but you are absolutely defending some of the most disgusting, worst people there.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Thu 11th July 2013, 12:26am
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr.../Br%27er_Rabbit

LE FUNNI SCUTTLING AND THEN GETTING BLOCKED BY ADMIN MEME
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Thu 11th July 2013, 12:32am
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/Garrafa-azul

The account has no edits and is free to edit, yet it's tagged as being Davenbelle.

I think Ed17 is wrong, this guy is clearly the Wikipedia is Communism vandal, i can tell by his clear left-wing choice of username and previous pattern of edits.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Fri 12th July 2013, 8:08pm
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



I think we can all agree that Merridew is one of these people that Wikipedia is better without. Isn't it funny how some such people get banned, while others become Checkusers and oversighters? Some people get much more protection than Merridew ever did.


This post has been edited by Detective: Fri 12th July 2013, 8:08pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Sat 13th July 2013, 1:22am
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



QUOTE
I think we can all agree that Merridew is one of these people that Wikipedia is better without. Isn't it funny how some such people get banned, while others become Checkusers and oversighters?


Have oversighters and checkusers generally been "elected" because of their high number of edits and active participation on some internal project? Or have they been elected because they were friends of friends and friends on IRC, and similar things?


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jay
post Sun 14th July 2013, 2:14pm
Post #6


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun 23rd Aug 2009, 5:15pm
Member No.: 13,123



QUOTE(Text @ Sat 13th July 2013, 2:22am) *

QUOTE
I think we can all agree that Merridew is one of these people that Wikipedia is better without. Isn't it funny how some such people get banned, while others become Checkusers and oversighters?


Have oversighters and checkusers generally been "elected" because of their high number of edits and active participation on some internal project? Or have they been elected because they were friends of friends and friends on IRC, and similar things?

Oh, definitely the latter. And of course there are the token females, who are beyond criticism just because they are token females.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Sun 14th July 2013, 8:50pm
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



QUOTE
Oh, definitely the latter. And of course there are the token females, who are beyond criticism just because they are token females.


What if a token female is proven to be unsuited for the role but they choose to elect her, instead of a more competent male counterpart, assuming they can tell who is behind the screen? Is that a good thing to do in their opinion?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Retrospect
post Mon 15th July 2013, 6:16pm
Post #8


Londoner born and bred
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed 7th Dec 2011, 1:16pm
From: London
Member No.: 71,989

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Text @ Sun 14th July 2013, 9:50pm) *

QUOTE
Oh, definitely the latter. And of course there are the token females, who are beyond criticism just because they are token females.


What if a token female is proven to be unsuited for the role but they choose to elect her, instead of a more competent male counterpart, assuming they can tell who is behind the screen? Is that a good thing to do in their opinion?

Sigh! You seem to be assuming that the shitheads' aim is to have good checkusers and oversighters. No, their aim is to attract more editors and having a few prominent females wil help that. These naive new editors don't realise that these token females are twats.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Tue 16th July 2013, 12:04pm
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



QUOTE
Sigh! You seem to be assuming that the shitheads' aim is to have good checkusers and oversighters. No, their aim is to attract more editors and having a few prominent females wil help that. These naive new editors don't realise that these token females are twats.


Well, we all reached the conclusion that the Foundation is a bus full of people with a random person behind the wheel, while going across a huge desert first, and then approaching towns, villages, and cities, and disregarding everyone who is on the road.

PEDAL TO THE METAL, AND NEVER LIFT!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th 9 17, 3:40pm