Page 1 of 5

Wikipediocracy blog post on the Framban conspiracy

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:34 pm
by CrowsNest
No, not published yet. :lol: :roll:

They seem to be having a few problems with it......
Jake wrote:I think we're working on that, but every time new info comes in, whatever's written has to be changed, so...
Yup, that's a hazard of being a conspiracy theory promoter, where you necessarily have to put the who/why in the draft before the what/when/how to back it up.

I wonder who is writing it. It's guaranteed to be filed under an anonymous byline, typical of the cowards, in case whoever it is was thinking of making a name for themselves. The primary pusher of it on the forum, Vigilant, has conveniently claimed he's too busy working to write it. Like he hasn't already spent hundreds of hours on it. He's literally transcribing PDFs fer feck's sake.

As well as the shuddering realization of what it means to publish (and be damned), I think maybe he just realized he's not quite cut out for wordsmithing. I mean, even his proposed title was crying out for a copyedit.....
Skeevy Grifters within in Wikipedia prey on the Paralympicsans committees.
Yup, I properly Corbetted the fucker. Where's my barnstar? :lol:

I think copyeditor is but one of many roles that will be needed for this task. You certainly need someone with a serious understanding of morals, to deal with shit like this......
Moral_Hazard wrote:Does she who must not be named (on Wiki) ever identify herself as disabled?

Some disabilities would explain the trouble with writing or talking coherently or with her impatience and thin-skin.
There may not even be a blog post, and you'll lose your coffee when you hear the excuse Uncle Jake is floating. Apparently, the mainstream press wouldn't be interested in the biggest scandal to ever rock Wikipedia, which is what it would be if it is true, because it resulted in beneficial acts for the disableds. I'm not making this shit up, it writes itself.

Re: Wikipediocracy blog post on the Framban conspiracy

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:51 am
by Anyone
CrowsNest wrote:The primary pusher of it on the forum, Vigilant, has conveniently claimed he's too busy working to write it. Like he hasn't already spent hundreds of hours on it. He's literally transcribing PDFs fer feck's sake.

Let's investigate.

The WPO thread we need is this: ... start=3100

On Tue Sep 10, 2019 8:16 pm Vigilant informs us that:

I am at work and digging deep into a novel MCU safety processor architecture. Anyone who wants to make a blog out of this is free to do so with my blessing.

Prior to writing this [at 8.16 pm], he posted on WPO at:

1. 3.40 pm
2. 4.08 pm
3. 4.27 pm
4. 5.02 pm
5. 6.17 pm
6. 6.45 pm
7. 7.38 pm
8. 8.15 pm

And after telling us how busy at work he is, he posts again at ..................

9. 8.42 pm
10. 8.43 pm
11. 8.44 pm
12. 8.55 pm
13. 9.43 pm
14. 10.00 pm
15. 10.12 pm
16. 10.19 pm
17. 10.23 pm
18. 10.40 pm
19. 10.59 pm
20. 11.17 pm
21. 11.48 pm

..... and on into Wednesday, where the Obsessive Personality Disorder continues to manifest itself.

Vigilant needs therapy. No ifs, no buts.

Re: Wikipediocracy blog post on the Framban conspiracy

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:08 am
by Graaf Statler
In one of the many fights with Eric after Eric made a remark what Vig should have under his belt he told us he had even three firms under his belt.
He knows everything what happens in Wikiland, if a fly did a little poop on WP Vig has noticed it. And he must also have some high trusted function in Wikipedia, otherwise Bart Legal had not seen him as his last straw. Wikipedia is Vig his fulltime job and even more.

Vig has no real job, because Vig simple can't function in the society. That's a said conclusion but a very true conclusion. And what we read are the dreams what Vig wish he was but never will be.

Re: Wikipediocracy blog post on the Framban conspiracy

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:27 am
by CrowsNest
Therapy can't fix what he has.

All he needs to do, is stop being so stupid as to think he can say stuff like he doesn't have time to write a blog post detailing this daft conspiracy theory, and expect people are just going to believe it.

He is the one person, if there is anyone there, who knows enough about the assorted ridiculous claims that intertwine to form this conspiracy, to be able to package it into an easily digestible format, for the benefit of readers.

He has not only posted the supposed evidence etc, he is so certain he has found some explosive scandal, he has posed the specific "questions that need to be asked and answered" (which seems rather pointless since he has already named all the guilty parties).

He has done virtually everything needed to write this potential blog post, putting aside the obvious issues of it being a conspiracy theory, except write it. So why wouldn't he? Why does he want other people to waste their time rumaging through the box of broken elastic hands that is his head right now?

The possible reasons he is reluctant to put pen to paper, are rather obvious.....

* He doesn't really believe any of it, not really. Maybe he's just attention seeking.

* He doesn't think it would be worth it (as in, people would just ignore it, because it's obvious garbage)

* He fears that when you put it all together as a theory, an accusation you can test against evidence and logic, it's so daft, people would actually laugh at him (he clearly hates being laughed at, look how he runs from me!)

* He doesn't think Jake would be able to stop him being sued (the inevitable consequence if it was noticed)

* He has never had any intention of broadcasting this garbage outside the cult, he doesn't want the mainstream media to pick it up even if he is daft enough to think they would accept it. He has all the intended readers he wants in the forum, his intent being only to further Wikipedia's harassment culture and bolster the Wikipediocracy position inside the community, that the saintly Wikipedians are under attack from the evil Foundation.

* He has no faith in his writing skills (in which case he would still be prepared to offer a rough outline, to be put into words by CornPoke McGilliguddy, and for Eric Corbett to copyedit). Instesd, all he has offered, is his "blessings", which shows he does at least want to be seen as the primary author, even if he doesn't ultimately pen a word of it. And to be fair, anyone stupid enough to take the task on, needs divine inspiration (and protection).

You'd have to be an idiot to think the only reason he wants no part of making this blog post, is that he's just too busy at work. An absolute stone cold moron. It's maybe like, number four, at best.


Jake really needs to stop pretending that their magic cloak of invisibility works better than Wikipedia's. It doesn't. They say stupid shit, and it gets highlighted here. Instant loss of credibility. We remind them we are here, they ignore us, and they lose even more credibility. We are pissing into their tent, and they are getting soaked in piss. Who knows, maybe they like it, the freaks. Wikipedians can at least say they have to smell of piss, for a higher purpose. Wikipediocracy just seem to want it.

This thread has had forty views in the few hours since I posted it. If they each tell five friends that Vigilant is obviously a dickwad, and they each tell five people, then pretty soon everyone who knows anything about this controversy, knows the chief promoters of it, are a bunch of chicken littles.

I'd write the post in a heartbeat, if I believed a word of it. It's dynamite stuff, if true.

Re: Wikipediocracy blog post on the Framban conspiracy

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:26 am
by CrowsNest
The eviscerating rebuttal I will write to whatever garbage plops out of Wikipediocracy's butt hole, if it ever does, practically writes itself.

It's gonna be like shooting fish in a barrel. Like all good conspiracy theorists, ensuring the facts back up their words has never been a priority for these idiots.

Even now, Vigilant is writing nonsense like this on page 64 of their forum thread......
Courcelles ..... was deeply involved in and completely aware of the grifting ...... It also implicates his wife .... in a gross conflict of interest.

Courcelles should have, at the very, very least, have announced his COI and recused immediately when this case came to the docket.
As my internal bullshit detector went into overdrive, I'm not even exaggerating when I say it took me THIRTY SECONDS to locate where I had seen this.....
You're thinking of Courcelles and me (it's on his userpage and my volunteer userpage). While I can't speak for him and any decisions he might make, I can tell you that he's traveling with limited internet access for the next few weeks, and before he left I had already urged him to, if the case is still ongoing when he returns, either confirm that he's still inactive or officially recuse so as to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Courcelles has recused in this case. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Case was opened on 24 July.

It doesn't get any easier than that. I should know, tearing their shitty blog posts to pieces is kind of a hobby of mine. Sometimes it can take hours. Imagine the state this one would be in, if I devoted that much time to it? Take a look at who wrote posts for them in the past - it reads as a who's who of people who I have sent packing from the critic space, because they were idiots. No surprise then that latterly they don't dare let me know who is the author.

I'm sure they think they can make it robust, even though bulletproof is really what they should be aiming for in such an explosive piece, but they're wrong. Their task is akin to making a shanty town hurricane proof using nothing but sticky tape, if that's not a too insensitive analogy at this time.

We may never know if Vigilant is knowingly being this careless with his forum output or not, making the life of this future blog post's author exceedingly difficult given they clearly can't trust a word he writes if he doesn't show his working (and we've seen enough to know his tendency toward bias and outright misrepresentation also exists even when he has a link). His cowardice prevents us from properly establishing if he is just incompetent, or deeply malevolent. Perhaps the best thing that explains it, is the wild eyed lunacy that takes a grip of anyone who finds the promulgation of conspiracy theories a worthwhile endevour.

What we are sure of, is that by offering his "blessing" to whoever wants to bash that thread and it's offshoots into a blog post, is actually a curse.

You would be cursed.

I am nothing if not fair and honourable. This is your official warning, whoever is or might be considering this offer of a poisoned chalice. Ignore it at your peril. Jake, Vigilant, and all the other frightened little fucks cowering in the Wikipediocracy storm shelter, have unwisely ignored my previous warnings, and they have reaped the consquences. Is that what you want for yourself? If so, I can facilitate. I will facilitate.

And I fucking enjoy it.


Come at me, 'bro. :lol:

Re: Wikipediocracy blog post on the Framban conspiracy

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:00 am
by CrowsNest
Jake is absolutely running scared......
And please note that I still don't think anyone at the University of Canberra or any of the HOPAU participants, including ******** himself, had any real reason to think they were doing anything wrong
Sorry dude, but true investigators have to go where the "evidence" leads them. Truth is the ultimate defence, as Vigilant said recently about this future blog post.

If these people have done wrong, and Vigilant certainly seems to think so, well, you gotta go after them in the expose, otherwise people might think you're covering up for them......

The ultimate conspiracy! We should have suspected the investigators were dirty from the very beginning! :lol:

Who paid you to bury this? What is their Wikipedia user name? Hand over all pertinent records to me, in full recognition of my ethical and moral right to investigate this "clear and obvious" case of corrupt chicanery.

It's actually pretty fun, being a fruit loop, I can certainly see the attraction.

But to get back to the serious matters that should concern responsible investigators, Vigilant has already used your forum to implicate UC personnel in "criminal fraud". It's done, already saved in the internet archive (I checked), so certainly someone out there seems to be lining your outfit up for a real hard ass-fucking.

The full context of his statement means that any blog post that doesn't state clearly and unequivocally that your website thinks these identifiable people at a prominent public institution have "questions to answer", then we can assume the author will no longer have Vigilant's "blessings". He could write it himself of course, but I fear he doesn't want to continue his family tradition of being transported to the colonies for hard labour.

Re: Wikipediocracy blog post on the Framban conspiracy

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:02 pm
by CrowsNest
The time scales alone in this whole conspiracy are freakin' hilarious.

Expect any piece they do publish to be ultra vague on basic narrative elements like what happened when, as part of a supposed chain of causality, because seeing actual dates, as in years, written in black and white, will produce only one reaction to people not already fully tokin' on the product.


Re: Wikipediocracy blog post on the Framban conspiracy

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:47 pm
by CrowsNest
Poetlister wrote:As Lewis Carroll said, "Sentence first - verdict afterwards."
Carrite wrote:Basically Arbcom was gonna do what Arbcom was gonna do, going the full Lewis Carroll of "Sentence First, Verdict Afterwards" with their so-called "Findings of Fact."
Can't you people text each other before the witch burning, to make sure you haven't got the same dress on?

Naturally, with such literary geniuses on deck, this proposed blog post will reassure readers that there was no rush to judgement by the team at CSI:Fuckwit.

Or, y'know, they'll just write some fantastical story that will only be believed by children.

The Sucks! Literary Review Society awaits your submission, Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber......

Remember the golden rule, if it hasn't got gratuitous imagery of females, it's not a Wikipediocracy classic.


Re: Wikipediocracy blog post on the Framban conspiracy

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:39 pm
by CrowsNest
I swear to God, I would have so much fun critiquing any garbage Vigilant would write. He calls this......
Okay, folks. I agree the template needs to change somehow- perhaps by a radical restart- but the comments like "absurd" and "terrible" are going too far. There's a way to express your views on the template's usefulness without putting down the good-faith editors who worked on it... and this is not it. Courcelles 04:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
......"Super high level air cover for Laura Hale's shitting up of the project."

You absolute fucking snowflake.

You hate the WMF so much you're gonna make people think this is what bad shit on Wikipedia looks like?

Are you for real?

Say nothing if you agree.

Re: Wikipediocracy blog post on the Framban conspiracy

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:32 pm
by Graaf Statler
I think you and I see the same, Crow. A person who is complete psychical derailing.
Jake is a idiot not to stop him.