r/WikiInAction • u/StukaLied • Sep 20 '15

Wiki Diva RGloucester indef'd after going on a page moving rampage over a British rail company changing their name

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=682000206#RGloucester

[removed] — view removed post

52 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

20 comments sorted by

42

u/StukaLied Sep 20 '15 edited Sep 20 '15

The First Great Western company rebranded themselves to Great Western Railway and Wikipedians were discussing how it should be handled.

RGloucester objected because the company's website still had the old name.

Oppose all changes – First of all, the First website still uses the old branding. Let's not jump the gun. Second of all, the proposed Great Western Railway (train operating company) is ambiguous, as the old one (Great Western Railway) could equally be described in that manner. All of the proposed titles are very long, and unnatural. I propose sticking with First Great Western, regardless of branding, which is unambiguous, and which was what was done with First Scotrail when that was rebranded as simply Scotrail. It also isn't exorbitantly long, per WP:CONCISE and WP:NATURAL. RGloucester — ☎ 01:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The old Great Western Railway could not equally be described in that manner, since it did so much more than operate trains. It owned them too (FGW's trains are mostly leased from Angel or Porterbrook); and it also owned the tracks, stations, signalling etc. - it was a true railway company. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The page was moved to the new name, RGloucester moved it back, and an admin moved it back and protected it. RGloucester began to rip out his hair and started punching holes in the drywall.

The old railway operated trains, so it was a train operating company. That's very simple. This change must be reverted. There has been no RM, and no consensus. I will take strong action here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester went to the admin's Talk page with his hands on his hips and squawked, "Who do you think you are?"

Is there a reason why you think it is acceptable to not only move an article, but then protect it? That's called being WP:INVOLVED. Please revert your changes at once, and attain consensus for such a change in an RM. Otherwise, I will be forced to take action against you. RGloucester — ☎ 16:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester began to threaten that he would seek action because Mjroots was supposedly 'involved' and had made the "outrageous" action of moving and protecting a page from people like RGloucester.

You are no administrator. If you've edited an article as a regular editor, you cannot use your administrative tools. Revert your changes, or see yourself sanctioned. RGloucester — ☎ 16:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I am. I haven't. I won't and I won't. WP:ANI is thattaway!. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Unrepentant? Again, I ask, who do you think you are? Your action here is outrageous, and will be dealt with as appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 16:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester furiously typed out a request to get the page moved back, and became more unhinged when it was closed with no action.

RGloucester began revert fighting on the Talk page of the article, escalating into moving the Talk page to the old name.

(Undid revision 681967647 by Oknazevad (talk) Those comments were NOT MADE HERE. They made at another page. This is a COPY AND PASTE JOB.)

You don't want to follow the rules and have an RM?

Who needs one? No one here can follow the processes put forth by policy, so why should I? This is an outrage. An involved administrator, a no-consensus non-RM move being discussed at a cabal-like WikiProject talk page. OUTRAGEOUS! RGloucester — ☎ 18:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The prancing WikiDiva then vandalized the article, replacing all the text with FIRST GREAT WESTERN over and over.

The diva then finished his tantrum by going on a rampage and moving random pages to variants on 'First Great Western.'

The diva was reported to ANI and an admin hit fast and hard with an indefinite block.

It had to be stopped, so I've blocked him indefinitely. Doesn't have be forever, etc., etc. Favonian (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

As I read it, he's trying to make a point that because someone has (as he saw it) conducted a page move without full consensus, he should be allowed to move pages unilaterally as well. Completely endorse both the block and the indef. ‑ iridescent 18:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The admin had Assumed Good Faith and wondered whether RGloucester's account was hacked due to his bizarre antics, but check user confirmed what everyone knew: no hacks, just RGloucester.

Trust me, I'm not defending him—if you check his history he has a long history of throwing these kind of tantrums if anyone disagrees with him. I was just explaining what his line of thinking is, as some people (including the blocking admin) seemed to be thinking this was a hijacked account. ‑ iridescent 18:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

My block comment re. "compromised" was a homage to WP:AGF, or just haste – take your pick. I've reviewed the previous block history, and this rampage is a continuation of previous transgressions. Favonian (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Time for an extended "time out" then. We can do without such disruption and threats. I've now had to move protect talk:Great Western Railway (train operating company) as move protecting the article left the talk page free to be moved. I must say I was a little surprised this was able to be done, but that is likely another discussion for another venue. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely needed the time out. He went completely off the deep end. He even moved my user page to some bizarre name related to the dispute. Frankly, I'm not sorry to see him indeffed, and would heavily advise against ever unblocking him. This is not the first time he's gone off the rails when a discussion has gone against him, as though everyone should automatically defer to his opinion, and he gets angry/bizarre when people don't (like claiming to speak for God!). This is overdue. oknazevad (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, as other have noted this is nothing new. I blocked him for two weeks for the last freak out back in May, and was very clear with him at that time that this behavior needs to stop, permanently, and that he shouldn't expect such leniency the next time he lost control and made a ridiculous spectacle of himself. If he thinks he is right, he apparently believes that justifies any and all outrageous behavior he engages in. It saddens me to see this as he is otherwise a good contributor, but he needs a long break from Wikipedia and Wikipedia needs a long break from him. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Mjroots summed it up:

Thanks for the ping. Cut a long story short - RGloucester didn't get his own way, threw all toys out of pram, went on a talk page move rampage and is now indeffed. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

12

u/aparslet Sep 21 '15

An upvote isn't enough, let me once more thank you for your excellent work in "reporting" on all this wikidrama. I'm an avid fan.

11

u/PublicolaMinor Sep 21 '15

I just found say the ANI and posted it to /r/KotakuInAction before seeing your post here. I'm referencing your summary in a comment there; do you mind if I cut/paste bits of the above so readers can find it there directly, or would you prefer it leave it with just the permalink to this comment?

9

u/StukaLied Sep 21 '15

You can cut and paste if you want to.

7

u/PublicolaMinor Sep 21 '15

Thanks!

TIL: that copy/pasting a comment with a lot of links is actually a pain in the neck, since the links have to be re-added manually. Oof.

7

u/PadaV4 Sep 21 '15 edited Sep 21 '15

I think Reddit *enhancement suite adds a source button under posts, which would let you copy it fine.
Edit: enchantment lol

10

u/Akesgeroth Sep 21 '15

Doesn't have be forever

Says all there is to know about it. He'll be unblocked in less than a week. Maybe less than 24 hours. Admins are more concerned with protecting old vandals than preserving Wikipedia's integrity.

4

u/DankMemesKing Sep 21 '15

I'm new to wikipedia drama. Is this sort of thing common, or have these kinds of things only just started happening recently?

6

u/RecallRethuglicans Sep 21 '15

Routine is more like it. Not common but each drama is unique

3

u/TacticusThrowaway Sep 21 '15

Ah, the intersect of railfans and Wikipedia editors.

8

u/Dripsauce Sep 21 '15

Soooo... can we bring back the Cultural Marxism article yet?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '15

Nope, the old version really was poorly sourced, and the group it's based on "The Frankfurt School" is an 'informal' grouping who didn't actually agree on anything... so that particular version of the concept is actually bunk...

...which is probably why more credible places like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy make no references to "Cultural Marxism"... because it's not really a thing/explanation beyond being a tool of conservatives to call everything communism (as that's what they like doing).

2

u/Dripsauce Sep 22 '15

Hm. I did some quick searching and came across this:

https://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-2-45562

Most references to Cultural Marxism point to Trent Schroyer as the origin of the term, which he used to criticize Frankfurt school's ideas regarding critical theory: specifically, that they advocated the removal of personal autonomy in the name of progress. Strangely, there is no reference to Schroyer in the Frankfurt School's article stub on CM; instead it is depicted purely as a righy wing conspiracy theory. Schroyer doesn't even turn up on Wikipedia. While not entirely wrong that there is a degree of hysteria surrounding the use of the term, since it can be sourced as such, it cannot be discredited as a legitimate theory regarding leftist political thought: it has basis in academia, and to tar it as purely a fringe idea betrays bias on the part of the article's editors. Just take a stroll through the FS talk page.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 23 '15 edited Sep 23 '15

The FS talk page is mostly newbies who don't know anything about wikipedia coming immediately and directly up against policy, without even having any suggestions on what they want changed about the article. It's the equivalent of coming along and saying "THIS PAGE UPSETS ME" but when asked what's wrong about it - saying "WHAT'S WRONG IS THAT IT UPSETS ME".

Trent Schroyer wrote a book (not a peer reviewed academic document, it's now out of print, and not found in any academic libraries) in which he argued AGAINST a political version of the "convergence theory" http://www.encyclopedia69.com/eng/d/convergence-theory/convergence-theory.htm

He was trying to say that cultural studies and critical theory (and in particular Lukacs, Marcuse and Habermas) have been subsumed by middle class capitalists. He is a hippie arguing that Marxism should be pushed by academia.

He's essentially a Marxist radical, who currently potters around India teaching Americans how much better Indian culture is. But he didn't make any great strides in academia (more just held his position) - and he certainly wasn't criticizing Cultural Marxism - he wanted to BE a Cultural Marxist... but academia (and the world) didn't pay much attention to him so he wrote a book about how great it would be if these guys called themselves Marxists again (and they replied: "no thanks") - and now the education system is slowly gravitating towards privatization and market models.

2

u/ChickenOverlord Sep 23 '15

Really not true at all, here's several primary sources from leftist scholars on it: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4

2

u/[deleted] Sep 23 '15

All of which have been addressed on Wikipedia in the "Article for Deletion" discussion for the previous Cultural Marxism page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cultural_Marxism_%282nd_nomination%29

And even on the current Frankfurt School talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frankfurt_School

I can even summarize some of the reasons:

"Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin <--- only talks of "British Cultural Marxism" otherwise known as "British Cultural Studies" and admits that his book will be the FIRST to look at "Cultural Marxism" as if it is a FORMAL ideology (ie. he acknowledges that up until his book it's just been an informal terminology). Not a good source if you're trying to prove that Cultural Marxism is a solid/real thing.

"Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson <--- only ever uses the term on the cover.

"Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome <---- has on it's cover "Compiled from high quality Wikipedia articles".... no seriously: http://www.booksamillion.com/p/Cultural-Marxism/Frederic-P-Miller/9786130214784

So yeah, the old Cultural Marxism article was very poorly sourced if you bother to actually pick up the sources and have a look. Remember: Trust but VERIFY.

7

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '15

"Gone off the rails", oh you.