The reason CrowsNest got banned

[Graaf Statler]

Well, I would love to see a explanation and asked for it. And of course they block me because it is not done to make wikipedians crying. You must pamper every toddler, Crow, we will discipline you till you understand the basic principes of Wikipedia!

[CrowsNest]

there's no point in him coming back as "CrowsNest" anyway - he's too widely disliked, every thread he'd participate in would devolve to "why was he even allowed back for the fourth freaking time?" Much better for him to start a new account and try to take it slightly less personally when someone disagrees with him next time around.

Not sure I even really need to point it out, but really, banning people simply because they're unpopular, and letting it be known they can just sock if they want to come back? Could they be any more like Wikipedia if they tried? No backbone or integrity at all.

I shall be declining this invitation from their site Administrator to break their own rules, since, and this seems to have slipped his mind, the things he let people say to me were entirely personal, the sort of stuff that you really do need to be a sniveling coward with zero self respect, to be able to ignore. I happily let them ignore me if they couldn't handle the truth, I didn't even rise to the bait when they tirelessly jumped up and down telling everyone they were ignoring me. It wasn't enough for these children.

I will point out that, as site Administrator, he has the power to stop threads descending to that level, if he really wanted. I seem to recall he went the other way, and thought it necessary to join in with some of the childish behaviour. At no point did I break any of their existing rules as I stood up for myself. I simply broke their unwritten rule - don't make the locals hate themselves by simply pointing out politely but firmly, how they're all too often a bunch of ignorant, arrogant, hypocrital Wikipedia loving Wikipedian defending scumbags.

Why would any serious critic even want to be around those sort of people? Answering that question is unimportant to Jake. Not even on his radar. What does he possibly have to offer me, a serious critic? The pleasurable delights of being treated like a mug by the likes of Dennis Brown? The wonderful opportunity of being told by obvious morons that I know not of what I speak, and then watching them run away when I show that I do? The chance to be courtesans to the likes of NewYorkBrad and Floquenbeam? Fuck. That. Shit.

Even worse, the chance to listen to Kumioko endlessly whine like a broken record (they banned him for that once, I seem to recall, back when they were trying to raise standards), and flip flops his positions when remotely challenged, if not abandoning them completely, in a way that shows he has no real confidence in what he's saying, but a huge desire to keep saying it. He only returned to their sad little club because I'm not the sort of mug who sits by and happily ignores that sort nonsense as if it's useful to anyone. We do what you can't. We exist because you suck. The clue is and always was in the title.

On a point of fact, there are people on that forum who don't seem to dislike me, and not because I try to be their friend, more likely because I'm explicitly not. I'm not a Wikipedia critic for the social scene, I got all the friends I need IRL. It isn't any coincidence I don't think, that they are simply unafraid to come here and interact with me. People who know their own minds, and don't let a person like Jake dictate who they can and can't be seen with.

I think they already know it, but for this ability to make their own minds up and not run with the pack, I am quite sure Jake doesn't consider them genuine members of that site. The serious critics who have been banned or who have left Wikioediocracy all have this quality in common. It isn't an accident. When the time comes, if they find themselves not liking the price of entry and pushing back, he'll do the same to them as he did to me. He knows his place. He knows his role.

It's not a critical website he's running. Not even close. More like a Facebook group. Sad fuckers. They're afraid of me and want to huddle together for extra protection, that's all it is. Sheep. And they're right to be afraid of the Big Bad Wolf. I fucking warned them.

[Graaf Statler]

Complete bull and something about roses. They just have to give you permision to edit. There is not any reason why not and special not in at least in the only for members section.

[CrowsNest]

The only thing I actually wrote about him is that he's widely disliked here, and I don't see that as especially controversial - if anything, he'd probably be embarrassed if that weren't the case. And in the exceptionally unlikely event that he wants to stop being disliked among us or anyone else whom he bashes on the internet, I would imagine he knows how to do that too. He's a smart guy.

It doesn't take a lot of brian power to see what you're defending is banning smart guys if your members dislike them. The inference is that you prefer to run a busy forum populated by dumb posters who prioritise not rocking the boat and playing silly games, over truth and integrity.

In all the useless noise this strategy produces, it's the posters like trout and dial I feel sorry for. Their good posts are simply ignored by your favoured posters, lost in a sea of shite. Ironically, much of it tedious grammar/language pedantry as a sad passive aggressive substitute for real conflict, which you frown upon because it scares the Wikipedians away. Someone will certainly be turning in their grave, won't they? Two people probably.

It's a sad sight, watching your protected posters do what they do, as if it's not thoroughly contemptible. As we speak, respected poster Ming is doing what he does, the original Mean Girl. He must be getting pretty mad that you're not doing what he wants you to do, and get rid of Graaf. Trying to show you can stand up to him are you? Too late. You showed your true colours already. You want Ming, you can have him. And anyone else who lacks the spine to call out his bullshit. Zero value posters. Zero value people.

You will disagree this is what you are, the dumb fucks you protect will protest vehemently. The benefit of being smart is knowing there is nothing behind that disagreement, except pride and ego. If any of you really had anything to say for yourselves, you'd have come here and said it. For this reason, sensible people, those who remember the basic purpose of your forum, can't do anything but dislike you, surely?

Better to be disliked for being right, than liked for being wrong.

[NadirAli]

Well, first you have to understand what Wikipediocrazy is. It's a extension of the WP-EN village Pump, were most times American members can complain about there little wiki pains.

I've looked through that forum several times. It has too many Wikipedia administrators being given privileges there. I was invited there by somebody who used to be a poster on a now defunct forum called "Wikipedia Review".

He did not become a regular for the same reason and has expressed interest in this forum. Wikipediocracy seems to become a complaints board for Wikimedia staff to express frustration with users, rather than accept accountability to control the situation.

What you described above is a great way to summarize it. It's a failure as long as they tolerate the influx of Wikipedia bureaucrats where they can lobby to protect their behavior.