Not here to build an encyclopedia

Authored almost entirely by our little lad. Includes some amazing howlers.

He defines "lulz" for us:

And here's one that FT2 himself has violated repeatedly:

Feel free to poke more holes in his "logic".

I can think of many such editors: DougsTech, Peter Damian, Aitias just off the top of my head...

You'd have to force yourself to read it first. Anyone else go blank when trying to read this mush?

But since Eric asked ... running it through the FT2 to English translator; 'doesn't matter if one's behavior is that of a productive editor if FT2 decides otherwise'.

These kinds of things pop up from time to time - it's usually based on frustration, the reaction to which is to make an attempt to codify and formalize Wikipedia's disrespect, disdain, and general disregard for its victims. ("Victims" being people who attempt to defend themselves and their interests on Wikipedia itself, from Wikipedians using the site as a revenge platform or "defamation machine.")

Mind you, it's not that I dislike Mr. FT2 personally. He's simply bought into the "vision," hook line and sinker, and he's probably too far gone at this point to come back from the abyss. But like I often say, I'm sure he's a fairly nice guy if you meet him in person.

Not sure why it's labeled as a proposed guideline. I've suggested it be tagged as an essay, which it most clearly is. It'll avoid the hideous prospect of attempting to force people to take it seriously.

Good idea!

I've actually been getting the impression that Mr. FT2 has been going through a few "ups and downs" lately. Nothing concrete of course, but some of his recent actions suggest a strong potential for burnout that he apparently isn't admitting to himself.

Sadder Budweiser


Yes. Mutual and reciprocal disdain, disregard, and disrespect are defining features of pathological relationships arising out of WikiCulture (which reflects human culture at large).


The probability of epiphany and redemption is low, both in the real world and in WikiCulture.

What Wikipedia lacks is Obama-style beer summits.

Henry Louis Gates said that Sgt. Crowley is an engaging chap when he's not arresting someone.

I suppose many Wikipedians are really nice people when they are not acting like Wikipedians.

Guy just needs a nice does of not giving a fuck. Does wonders for the lower bowels.

Thats a weird way to judge people. I expect Hitler Stalin and Pol Pot were too.

Jack Nicholson is also a nice guy when he is not in costume as the villain.

Wikipedia has morphed from an encyclopedia project to a dramaturgy workshop. The actors there are probably a lot like many actors who can convincingly portray a psychopath when on the theatrical stage.

Then again, I suppose some of them really are nutcases in real life, too.

{{cite}}

I seem to remember something about a coked-up Nicholson bashing somebody's windshield out with a golf club.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

I suppose even nice guys have bad days.

To be fair, such usage precedes him. I'm sure there are more and earlier examples, but that one is by far the best.

*edit* Oh looky, someone already deleted that line. (Props to CHL for remembering it, though.)

Yeah, the expression is damaged goods to my ears. There can't be a much bigger misuse of the concept than that, and I don't see much use in rehabilitating it as a catch-all. I won't sign anything that treats it as more than an essay.

"Focusing on Wikipedia as a social networking site"? But that's at least half the administrative corps right there!

Of course, the reality is that "Not here to build an encyclopedia" is a dogwhistle phrase used by the Cabal to mean "This individual is outcast and may be treated in any way you find amusing without fear of reprisal". Such typical Gerardism.

You cannot translate FT2. All you can do is be amazed at the act and wonder "what's with the shoe...?"

No, entirely untrue. I have been 'building the encyclopedia' consistently even through this mess. E.g. this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pet...Excluded_Middle

are notes for substantial additions to

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

which is one of the three fundamental logical principles. The existing article is a mess. I was also planning changes to this

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

which contains substantial factual errors. Note also the red links in the draft above. Wikipedia has no article on 'schematic variable' which is a fundamental concept in mathematical logic, and no article about the 'infinite term' which is an important idea in Aristotelian logic. Nor on the distinction between sentential negation and predicate negation.

How is this not 'building an encyclopedia'? How does banning me for some dissent (not 'disruption') help?

Naah - those guys were all complete assholes. So was Mussolini, in fact...

I find it's usually best not to try to compare prominent Wikipedians with evil genocidal tyrants from 20th century history - people might get the idea that we've lost our sense of perspective. Besides, guys like Hitler and Stalin would never have had the patience to become WP admins - though they might have asked for "rollbacker" rights at some point, if only to make the edit-warring a little easier.

I've been around my share of machievellian overachievers, especially during my time in the military, and I can tell you, that they were not "fairly nice people". One only needed to observe or interact with them for a short while to see that while they were undoubtedly above average in intelligence and usually polite and superficially cordial, they were also capable of throwing anyone to the wolves without a second thought if it suited their agenda to do so (of course, I'm not saying that I knew anyone who was as sociopathic as Stalin or Pol Pot). As Somey says, there probably aren't too many of these people involved to any great extent with Wikipedia, because they're more likely focused on much bigger and better things.

More to the point, it's a specious theory of mind that purports to characterize the intentions of another person. In that regard, it's not only original research unsupported by the scientific method, it's almost surely a false theory of mind.

I'd think "giving a shit" is what the lower bowels would need.

The scientific method is too consistently consistent for WP. What FT2 is working upon is a system that supports consistently inconsistent thinking. Its the method used by anyone who "works" on articles and constantly removes anything that is so horribly consistent with independent and reliable evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=304595776

(how can it possibly be discredited when it states it plainly in the literature, and it has overwhelmingly failed scientific testing?)

http://books.google.com/books?id=5-Plk1pAz...page&q=&f=false

http://gjarhe.research.glam.ac.uk/media/fi...Web_pp57-63.pdf

(Hi PD if you are around, that latter publication is a gem)

Excellent find. FT2 won't like that one........

Somebody just quoted FT2's essay in proposing a ban. I can't tell if they're joking or not.

The user's editing history displays little evidence of a sense of humor. His userpage is that of a serious MMORPGer, one who knows exactly how much XP he'll earn by slaying a troublesome user. I don't think he's joking, and I think he proves CHL's initial comment about the essay.

But who needs a sense of humor when you can bask in all the glory of flying around in private jets and flying to private islands when you have all those billions of wiki dollars flowing your way that you earn from all your massive wiki endeavors?

Oh but your also helping poor children in Africa and teh flounder to promote his commercial website.

What about the converse? If someones clearly on WP to build an encyclopaedia (and more fool them!) does that mean they shouldnt be banned?

I think it means they need therapy.

The best therapy for someone who really does want to write a first-rate encyclopedia article is to post it on Google Knol.

* Or Encyc.

I believe he's best known 'round these parts as the fellow committed to preventing Greg from undermining the very foundation of Wikipedia.

Oh right, Mr. "I didn't see a humor tag." Yeah, he definitely wasn't joking.

(p.s. your comment there is priceless.)