(no subject)

[cumaeansibyl]

We run into this kind of situation occasionally on Wikipedia: someone puts up a vanity page, someone else puts it up for vote at Articles for Deletion, and then a horde of fans shows up to vote "PLEASE KEEP" with newly-created accounts. When we separate out their votes and refuse to add them to the total, we're accused of being prejudiced, insulting, or even sockpuppets. Right now, it's Robin Artisson, and let me tell you: there's nothing experienced users hate more than LiveJournal bullshit on the 'pedia, because the fan-bases NEVER SHUT UP.

Never mind that those of us whose votes do count have gained that privilege through actual contributions to the 'pedia. Never mind that some of the alleged "anti-Robin sockpuppets" are ADMINISTRATORS -- oh, yes, I'm certain that someone managed to create an account, make several thousand edits, and be elected an administrator JUST TO SCREW YOU OVER.

Sigh.

I'm getting very tired of the righteous indignation on the delete page, to be honest. These people are showing up from LiveJournal or Yahoo Groups or somewhere, creating brand-spanking-new accounts for the sole purpose of voting on AfD, and then they're accusing us of being "prejududical" (heh) because we're not taking them seriously. Mind you, we're not counting the "delete" votes from new accounts either. We're not counting votes from new accounts at all. Why? BECAUSE WE NEVER DID.

What gets me is this assumption that we've somehow changed all our rules just for this specific case, so that we can persecute some guy most of us have never heard of. (No, seriously. I know you think everyone's heard of your God-man, but right now 99% of Wikipedia users running across this debate are like "Robin who?" and then going somewhere else.) We didn't make special rules for the Gay Nigger Association of America, and we didn't make special rules for the neo-Nazis or the Stalinists or the NAMBLA members -- if we're not persecuting them, why on earth would we bother persecuting anyone?

I took a stab at editing the article itself, cutting out all the page-long quotes and the numerous unverifiable claims and the spiritual hoo-ha. To my mind, an entry of this type should include information about three main things: education, publications, and occupation. Unsubstantiated Personal Gnosis, explications of personal philosophy or political views, long lists of people one has spoken with who also aren't famous enough to have articles, or nebulous complaints of internet drama do not belong in an encyclopedia whose main purpose is to provide facts. So I cut all that stuff out, and the entry was about three paragraphs long, and everyone accused me of OMG VANDALISM QUIT HATING YOU HATER. They should've seen the hack-job I did on the Ashlee Simpson article back when the rogue admin was using it as his personal masturbation shrine... that was a thing of beauty. This was sort of tame, by comparison.

They've changed it back, of course. I tried to explain to them that the article has a much better chance of surviving the deletion-vote if it isn't so godawful long, but they didn't listen... oh, well.

EDIT
I thought I'd make a list of Things We Do Not Care About On The Wiki:

* Your 500-member Yahoo! group. Yahoo! is for people who just graduated from AOL and think that Google is "too confusing." May I also point out that this Famous Pagan you're touting has fewer people in his LiveJournal community than I do on my friends list? Can I have an article, too?
* Who's a sockpuppet of whom. I don't care if every single one of the people voting "Keep" is Robin Artisson, because they all registered yesterday and they're not getting counted. You don't need to tell us that they're sockpuppets like you're letting us in on a big secret; we KNOW from sockpuppets.
* Your experiences in Fighting The Good Fight against Artisson and his followers. Whoopee. I don't care how amusing you think this is, you're all disrupting Wikipedia and I? Am NOT IN THE MOOD. Also, don't do that "haha, I'm so cool and clever" thing on my userpage like I'm on your side. I'm not. And I hate you.
* Your threats to run and tell "the Wiki Staff" on me for hurting your feelings. Who, exactly, do you mean by that? Do you mean the young man sitting two feet away from me, who's just finished a bowl of tortellini with my sausage-and-roasted-pepper marinara sauce and is in a mood to agree with just about anything I say? Oh, do tell him. I'm sure he'll want to know.
* "Some people self-publish to retain creative control!" Yeah, like publishing companies actually edit these days. Wikipedia says no self-published sources. We do what Wikipedia says.

Sigh.

Comments

[magentathompson.livejournal.com]

I have to ask...what on earth is the point of having an encyclopedia that any fucktard can come along and delete? (AND HOW THE HELL DO I GET ONE!??!?)

[cumaeansibyl.livejournal.com]

That's what the administrators are for. Any fucktard who comes along and starts deleting shit gets his ass banned. :)

[crista.livejournal.com]

um. Who?

[cumaeansibyl.livejournal.com]

The great Robin Artisson, of course!

(I am good at links)

[hyperform.livejournal.com]

what a great idea! I am going to make a page all about chris jackson. his life and works.

Well, keep ud

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

Artisson is an idiot, and I hope his page gets deleted, but I'd be just as pleased if it's reduced to about a paragraph that states that he's a famous troll.

[concordantnexus.livejournal.com]

One of the first things that I learned at college was that vanity presses (self-publishing for people with money to burn and books that no self-respecting editor will want to print) are unacceptable for academic papers. Gee, I wonder why? :)

[hyperform.livejournal.com]

i went to artisson's website and read some of his stuff. sure, he is about oh 70 years behind on current knowledge, but that's not unusual for neopagan writers. especially "enthusiastic" (using the old sense of the term) neopagan writers. his stuff isn't at all new or different or all that interesting, it's really similar to all the 80's stuff on "reclaiming" "tribal" identity based on antiquated armchair anthropology works such as margaret murray's "witch cults in western europe" and of course, "the golden bough" with emphasis on astral projection (and possibly a little bit of ursula le guin fantasy). I'd say that all in all he's not nearly as dangerous as silver ravenwolf not only because he can't get published but because his ideas are still not as fucked up as she is. His stuff gives me the sense that you can think whatever the shit you want but you don't go around proseletyzing to people about how great you are. He does seem to have a major messiah complex, has a pronounced haughtiness in his writings: consistently he gives the impression that everybody else just "missed" the implications that extant history has of the "secret" past of europe and that he finally has found a way to easily synthesize it, using astral projection and shoddy research. My conclusion (and since i never registered on wikipedia, i'm not going to get involved there) is that no, he doesn't need a page, but no, he's not all that dangerous. give him a couple years to get picked up by llewelyn or weisser and then try again.

[ashley-y.livejournal.com]

Deleted. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robin_Artisson)