Dr. Blofeld blows off Wikipedia Options

[Malleus]

Since the stub-creator at least will be watching, plus a few other generic cat and huggle patrolers, I think the balance is not against stubs. It may be in favor.

You seem to be deliberately avoiding the point that has now been made repeatedly; Blofeld's stubs were created by a bot. Bots don't watch articles.

They don't? Then that user:Clubot dude must take more Ritalin than SlimVirgin.

Since when did computer programs need to take Ritalin? The monitoring that Clubot can do is pretty basic ... but then you know all this already, you're just trying to make a sily point in a silly way. And you've succeeded.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Thu 4th June 2009, 3:54pm

[CharlotteWebb]

So the question is not number of absolute page-views, the the ratio of page views by contributors/vandals.

You mean page-edits, or page-views by those who later choose to edit, but yeah.

Since the stub-creator at least will be watching, plus a few other generic cat and huggle patrolers, I think the balance is not against stubs. It may be in favor.

I'll agree with that. One might say I write about obscure things, most of which have never been vandalized. I'm not exaggerating, I looked through the articles I remember creating and this was the worst I could find (granted, it was linked from the main page at that time).

Of course if I've said it once I've said it a thousand times. The watchlist system sucks but could be greatly improved by the ability to add sub-folders to it (which can hopefully be titled in a way which answers the FAQ "why the fuck am I watching these?").

[Milton Roe]

Since the stub-creator at least will be watching, plus a few other generic cat and huggle patrolers, I think the balance is not against stubs. It may be in favor.

You seem to be deliberately avoiding the point that has now been made repeatedly; Blofeld's stubs were created by a bot. Bots don't watch articles.

They don't? Then that user:Clubot dude must take more Ritalin than SlimVirgin.

Since when did computer programs need to take Ritalin? The monitoring that Clubot can do is pretty basic ... but then you know all this already, you're just trying to make a sily point in a silly way. And you've succeeded.

Well, that's me. Making silly points in a silly way for the benefit of silly people with silly arguments.

[Juliancolton]

Blofeld was a productive editor who spent month after month countering systematic bias. I'm honestly not sure why we're complaining about him.

I'm not entirely sure that the best way to counter "systematic bias" is to create loads of pretty useless and unwatched stubs; seems to me more like a vandal-magnet. Convince me.

As far as I know, most vandalism is caught fairly efficiently by ClueBot or Huggle. I'm not a big fan of mass-created stubs (they make a mess of RandomPage), but a bit of info is better than no info at all IMO.

[Malleus]

Blofeld was a productive editor who spent month after month countering systematic bias. I'm honestly not sure why we're complaining about him.

I'm not entirely sure that the best way to counter "systematic bias" is to create loads of pretty useless and unwatched stubs; seems to me more like a vandal-magnet. Convince me.

As far as I know, most vandalism is caught fairly efficiently by ClueBot or Huggle. I'm not a big fan of mass-created stubs (they make a mess of RandomPage), but a bit of info is better than no info at all IMO.

Only if it's reliable info. Who's checking?

[Somey]

As far as I know, most vandalism is caught fairly efficiently by ClueBot or Huggle.

As far as you know? The truth is that most vandalism of the "ERIC IS A FAG" and "OMGWTFROTFLOL" variety is caught by bots. Since that accounts for a large percentage of all vandalism, some WP'ers have decided to declare victory and congratulate themselves for a job not done.

But as for the rest, the really damaging stuff, bots will probably never become sophisticated enough to recognize false/unproven, insulting, and/or libelous allegations against individuals or organizations - they'll probably reach the point where they can determine if something is unsourced, and possibly auto-revert it on that basis, but a determined revenge-grabber could easily get around that problem, I should think. "Flagged Revisions" might help, but as I've said for the last 2-1/2 years, I'm not holding my breath - if I had, I'd obviously have died of brain anoxia a long time ago.

I'm not a big fan of mass-created stubs (they make a mess of RandomPage), but a bit of info is better than no info at all IMO.

I would agree with that too, if you made an exception for BLP's... but you're not, are you?

[Nerd]

He's back! How long was that then?

Seriously though, what a legend Blofeld is. How anyone can spend that much time on Wikipedia is beyond me - he must be some sort of superhuman.

[cyofee]

He's back! How long was that then?

Seriously though, what a legend Blofeld is. How anyone can spend that much time on Wikipedia is beyond me - he must be some sort of superhuman.

...If by "superhuman" you mean "able to live without an income or an offline social life for extended periods of time", then yup, he's superhuman.

[Nerd]

He's back! How long was that then?

Seriously though, what a legend Blofeld is. How anyone can spend that much time on Wikipedia is beyond me - he must be some sort of superhuman.

...If by "superhuman" you mean "able to live without an income or an offline social life for extended periods of time", then yup, he's superhuman.

No - I mean the ability to sit at the computer all day long, every day, editing every hour, most minutes. For three years. Does he not get bored by it? I surely would.

[A Horse With No Name]

He's back! How long was that then?

Seriously though, what a legend Blofeld is. How anyone can spend that much time on Wikipedia is beyond me - he must be some sort of superhuman.

I just saw the return pages -- you know, I never truly realized what a boring person he really is.

Even worse, I wasn't aware that he was 26 years old. I always assumed he was a teenager, like his dimwit sidekick Editorofthewiki.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Fri 5th June 2009, 7:20pm

[carbuncle]

He's back! How long was that then?

Seriously though, what a legend Blofeld is. How anyone can spend that much time on Wikipedia is beyond me - he must be some sort of superhuman.

I imagine a flameout like this would be harder to come back from...

[A Horse With No Name]

He's back! How long was that then?

Seriously though, what a legend Blofeld is. How anyone can spend that much time on Wikipedia is beyond me - he must be some sort of superhuman.

I imagine a flameout like this would be harder to come back from...

That loser is gone? Oh Happy Day. He was indef blocked, too!

[EricBarbour]

After seeing this I have to think: all that wiki-time is frying his brain.

[A User]

I just saw the return pages -- you know, I never truly realized what a boring person he really is.

Even worse, I wasn't aware that he was 26 years old. I always assumed he was a teenager, like his dimwit sidekick Editorofthewiki.

He must be on a social security benefit or a disability pension. Just checked his contributions - that's a hell of a lot of hours spent sitting at the computer.

[RMHED]

I just saw the return pages -- you know, I never truly realized what a boring person he really is.

Even worse, I wasn't aware that he was 26 years old. I always assumed he was a teenager, like his dimwit sidekick Editorofthewiki.

He must be on a social security benefit or a disability pension. Just checked his contributions - that's a hell of a lot of hours spent sitting at the computer.

In Blofeld's case one can't help thinking that a bullet to the brain would be a kindness really. Poor, poor deluded soul.

[A Horse With No Name]

In Blofeld's case one can't help thinking that a bullet to the brain would be a kindness really. Poor, poor deluded soul.

It would be a kindness to all of us, especially with this tantrum -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=295422915 -- and that egregious pun aimed at David Fuchs ("Go and Fuch yourself").

Somebody give the boy a real life, please.

[Nerd]

In Blofeld's case one can't help thinking that a bullet to the brain would be a kindness really. Poor, poor deluded soul.

It would be a kindness to all of us, especially with this tantrum -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=295422915 -- and that egregious pun aimed at David Fuchs ("Go and Fuch yourself").

Somebody give the boy a real life, please.

Oh c'mon. That "Go and Fuch yourself" was hilarious! Fuchs spends his wikilife hanging out on Featured article candidates and writing articles on his main activities in life - Star Trek and video games. Then he opposes people at RFA for the weakest, lamest reason possible, often along the lines of "Needs just a little more strong audited content work" or "Needs a little more noticeboard activity and dispute resolution". Basically, he wants something that doesn't exist - a perfect wiki admin.

[A Horse With No Name]

Oh c'mon. That "Go and Fuch yourself" was hilarious! Fuchs spends his wikilife hanging out on Featured article candidates and writing articles on his main activities in life - Star Trek and video games. Then he opposes people at RFA for the weakest, lamest reason possible, often along the lines of "Needs just a little more strong audited content work" or "Needs a little more noticeboard activity and dispute resolution". Basically, he wants something that doesn't exist - a perfect wiki admin.

Admittedly, Fuchs is an unfunny joke (anyone who obsesses over video games should be handled with tongs). But Blofeld's tantrum response to Fuchs' egging is equally embarrassing -- perhaps more so, since Blofeld seems to have a few brain cells (though they don't often appear to be working in synchronizaton). I guess everyone over on WP forgets there is a high road to travel.

[Anonymous editor]

Sorry, I must have forgotten - we don't care much about people who add content-free sub-stubs about living people to be grist for the greatest engine of personal defamation that ever existed. Wait, if they quit wikipedia, they are true heroes.

The number of dangerous, unhelpful articles created by Dr. Blofeld is massive. Here's one from just before he left:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yklymberdi_Paromov

Yes, that's exactly what's going to solve the BLP problems - articles about every politician in Turkmenistan! Watched by only it's author, who is the single most prolific creater of BLP stubs in ALL TIME!

Oh, and from his failed FAC, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kareena_Kapoor#Personal_life

I share Hipocrite's feelings on this matter.

[A Horse With No Name]

Sorry, I must have forgotten - we don't care much about people who add content-free sub-stubs about living people to be grist for the greatest engine of personal defamation that ever existed. Wait, if they quit wikipedia, they are true heroes.

The number of dangerous, unhelpful articles created by Dr. Blofeld is massive. Here's one from just before he left:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yklymberdi_Paromov

Yes, that's exactly what's going to solve the BLP problems - articles about every politician in Turkmenistan! Watched by only it's author, who is the single most prolific creater of BLP stubs in ALL TIME!

Oh, and from his failed FAC, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kareena_Kapoor#Personal_life

I share Hipocrite's feelings on this matter.

Well, wipe your hands when you are done feeling, okay?