QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 14th June 2011, 2:56pm)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 14th June 2011, 4:05pm)
Well, SlimVirgin is acting out of profile again. She has made a rather lucid and constructive statement
for the ArbCom case, where she is apparently throwing Cirt under the bus. It is also worth noting that there are lots and lots of editors
At this point the ArbCom case has become an exercise in being clearly on the winning side of the fight; everyone is clambering over themselves to be on record as "anti-Cirt". See that all the time; it's fairly disgusting to watch.
Yes. It is important to note that SV's comments are not all that out of profile. You see, she (and the rest of the WP coven) are faced with a rather nasty dilemma: the rules of their game do not really forbid documenting (with 150 citations) the spread of one group's attempts to use a living Senator's name as a neologisim for lubricated-shit-from-anal-sex, as punishment for his having made a right-to-privacy connection between bigamy, polygamy, incest, adultery, and gay marriage. Shame on him, for he didn't include pedophilia.
Rather than thank the man for furthering the philosophical debate about which kinds of private acts should deserve intrusion from the state, in law, his enemies instead decided to do the worst thing they could think of, which was to propose using Santorum's name for a rather specific unwanted byproduct of some of their own proclivities.
Yes, there's a certain quality of self-loathing here. And incidently, leaving Wikipedia with the question of whether to illustrate this product with an illustration or perhaps eventual photo. All of this being perfectly within Wikipedia's editorial guidelines, you understand, for Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED. And this is not clearly a BLP violation.
And worse still, Cirt (who is responsible for most of the article's expansion and exquisite citation) is not acting against WP:POINT since (s)he, by everybody's consensus, has been acting in good faith. Damn. So even though the effect is the same as if (s)he were somebody from WR doing this (in which case they'd have no problem giving him the boot per WP:POINT), they can't really do anything.
So, SlimVirgin has a problem. She can't appear not to be politically incorrect. She must denounce senator Santorum (and does). But.... she hates shit.
And she naturally has noticed what all this does to mock WP's policies on BLP, media verification, human dignity (see ignoring of), and trying not to be a general nuisance in the community.
Her solution: don't blame WP or its policies. Instead FIND THE WITCH
. Who, in this case, alas, would be Cirt
. You see, if we can't blame Wikipedia or its polities or ourselves (which we cannot), we can at least blame SOMEBODY. So here she is, doing that:
I ask the Committee to accept this case to examine the Santorum situation within the broader context of Cirt's editing. There has been concern for some time that Cirt's edits serve to promote outside commercial or political interests. I make no comment about motive, and indeed it's important to assume good faith. It's highly likely that Cirt simply becomes intensely interested in an issue, and pursues it for weeks to the exclusion of all else, without thinking about the appearance or consequences. It is nevertheless true that the effect of this is that Wikipedia is furthering outside interests, in a way that may not be in Wikipedia's interests; that the editing involves arguable BLP violations; and that the situation is causing disruption and bad feeling within the community.
That says it clearly, if you read between the lines, and even if you don't. Disruption and bad feeling and shit. In the communiteh. In River City.
The comments on Wales' TALK page are interesting only insofar as Wales' mentioning of human dignity (see paying lipservice to), and his usual flacid flailing at trying to think of a reason to fix this well-cited and totally WP:V verified river of shit, without changing policy on his beloved Wikipedia. He says:
What might be hard is to come up with a new name with consensus, but a good faith discussion ought to work well enough, and blind resistance to it might make much more clear to those on the sidelines that continuing as we are is allowing a platform to continue the attack.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it might be hard to come up with a new name by consensus. It might be hard to do anything by consensus
. Especially not with a WP communiteh who is (ahem) pretty gay, and in any case is hue and cry after Santorum to punish him for his illiberal views. Although some of them do not like the method.
As for WR being a cyberbully site, ala Beback, the idea is precious. If WR were at the top of the Google page rank list, that might fly. And if we had a well-coordinated campaign to make up a neologism for blindness to all internet-mediated depravity regarding human dignity, except as it involves nubile women Jimbo would like to bed
, and further to call this Walesification
or perhaps Jimblindness
, then it might fly. If the average person began to mutter: "The Wales trouser snake has only one eye and does not see well," then maybe. With all of this becoming an internet trope by virtue of being spread by one of the top web publishing resources, it might be cyberbullying, but not yet. Not even close.
The only cyberbullying so far is done by the website where Jimbo has more control than any single person. Go figure.
So what have we learned here? That WP will do nearly anything rather than to face their own institutional problems. And SlimVirgin will help. And no, she hasn't had an epiphany whereby she suddently "gets it." Instead, she is just looking for a way to justify eradification of something that disgusts her
, and isn't thinking at any higher level than that. Nor are most of these yahoos.
There is karma. You do reap what you sew. What goes around does tend to come around. Look, WR is bullying you all at WP, by saying that!
Do you need an illustration?