User:Petrarchan47: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
174.71.67.48 (talk) Can't stop quoting JusDaFax |
174.71.67.48 (talk) thx Iridescent |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<center>The [[Wikipedia:WikiSpeak#A|Arbitration Committee]] "assuming good faith" with an editor[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iridescent/Talk_header] |
|||
[http://listen.hatnote.com/ Listen to Wikipedia] |
|||
[[File:Una_Alarmed.jpg|center|500px]]</center> |
|||
<br /><div style="text-align: center; width: 60%; margin: auto; padding: 1em; border: {{{border|solid 2px gold}}}; letter-spacing: {{{spacing|28px}}}; background-color: {{{bgcolor|black}}}; color: {{{fgcolor|white}}}; font-weight: bold;"><span style="padding-left: {{{spacing|28px}}};">{{{1|RETIRED}}}</span></div><br /> |
<br /><div style="text-align: center; width: 60%; margin: auto; padding: 1em; border: {{{border|solid 2px gold}}}; letter-spacing: {{{spacing|28px}}}; background-color: {{{bgcolor|black}}}; color: {{{fgcolor|white}}}; font-weight: bold;"><span style="padding-left: {{{spacing|28px}}};">{{{1|RETIRED}}}</span></div><br /> |
||
| Line 6: | Line 7: | ||
"Wikipedia seems more a campground for paid shills and such. No interest without enough finances to hire dedicated campers to squat on pages are going to get past those that have. Some areas are without corporate interest or political controversy but on the pages that are, OCD wins ... Not many people can defend against claims that Wikipedia is being distorted by PR agencies and out-of-control employees who won’t disclose conflicts of interest. I myself had found and reported many incidents as such, but I just can’t be bothered anymore. Be cautious of Wikipedia. I only fix the occasional typos I come across; for divisive issues or products (monetary interests) I don’t even visit Wikipedia." ''[http://techrights.org/2014/03/17/wikipedia-and-microsoft/ Wikipedia Got Ruined by the Likes of Microsoft Who Pay People to Edit Articles About Microsoft]'' |
"Wikipedia seems more a campground for paid shills and such. No interest without enough finances to hire dedicated campers to squat on pages are going to get past those that have. Some areas are without corporate interest or political controversy but on the pages that are, OCD wins ... Not many people can defend against claims that Wikipedia is being distorted by PR agencies and out-of-control employees who won’t disclose conflicts of interest. I myself had found and reported many incidents as such, but I just can’t be bothered anymore. Be cautious of Wikipedia. I only fix the occasional typos I come across; for divisive issues or products (monetary interests) I don’t even visit Wikipedia." ''[http://techrights.org/2014/03/17/wikipedia-and-microsoft/ Wikipedia Got Ruined by the Likes of Microsoft Who Pay People to Edit Articles About Microsoft]'' |
||
</div> |
</div> |
||
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 50em; {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 )}} {{border-radius|1em}} border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> |
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 50em; {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 )}} {{border-radius|1em}} border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> |
||
''Quoting {{u|Jusdafax}}'': |
''Quoting {{u|Jusdafax}}'': |
||
Revision as of 18:28, 13 December 2015
RETIRED
"Wikipedia seems more a campground for paid shills and such. No interest without enough finances to hire dedicated campers to squat on pages are going to get past those that have. Some areas are without corporate interest or political controversy but on the pages that are, OCD wins ... Not many people can defend against claims that Wikipedia is being distorted by PR agencies and out-of-control employees who won’t disclose conflicts of interest. I myself had found and reported many incidents as such, but I just can’t be bothered anymore. Be cautious of Wikipedia. I only fix the occasional typos I come across; for divisive issues or products (monetary interests) I don’t even visit Wikipedia." Wikipedia Got Ruined by the Likes of Microsoft Who Pay People to Edit Articles About Microsoft
Quoting Jusdafax:
- I regard this "apology" as one of the most terrifying, duplicitious and Machiavellian statements I have ever read. The fact that three members of ArbCom refused to even consider JzG/Guy as a party to this case when he blocked you and subsequently harassed you to the point where he had to be banned from interacting with you, shows how stacked the deck was. Apology, faugh. It's an excercise in plausible denial, a phrase that the CIA came up with. Deeply disgusting and dark, in the most evil way possible. Bad faith by a highly active admin was proven, and nothing was done. That's not justice.[2]
- This sucks. That's my take. And no one still' has ever explained to me why I was named a party by Jytdog, when not a word of testimony was subsequently offered regarding me (chilling effect) and when Admin JzG/Guy, who had to be slapped with an interaction ban with SageRad due to JzG's outrageous harassment, escapes scott-free. I call Bullshit. That's right. Bull Shit.[3]
- This ArbCom ruling is a travesty and an injustice, to put [SageRad] in the same boat as the creepy corporate tool Jytdog, witting or unwitting.... I submit that in the future, this decision will be regarded by a solid majority of Wikipedians as deeply shameful.[4]