Why The Joy left Wikipediocracy

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
Flip Flopped
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:38 am

Re: Why The Joy left Wikipediocracy

Post by Flip Flopped » Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:39 am

Kumioko wrote:The tension are due to 3 people mostly, 2 of which are trustees so good luck making that site better as long as they are in there.
Aren't there only two trustees now: Vigilant and Zoloft? Zoloft can be an ass privately, but he tries to de-escalate shit publicly. Vigilant has calmed his personality down since he became a trustee/returned to WO. Barbour said he saw Vigilant being pissy to people on another forum/other fora. I have no doubt that's what Barbour saw, but I hold out hope that Vigilant will hearken to the angels of his better nature now that he's a trustee.

WO really should undo your "muting," Kumi. Whatever anyone else thought you might do, you were always a good poster on WR-2 (for years). You don't always talk about the same stuff.

User avatar
The End
Sucks Fan
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:45 am
Has thanked: 1 time

Re: Why The Joy left Wikipediocracy

Post by The End » Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:00 am

Flip Flopped wrote:
Kumioko wrote:The tension are due to 3 people mostly, 2 of which are trustees so good luck making that site better as long as they are in there.
Aren't there only two trustees now: Vigilant and Zoloft? Zoloft can be an ass privately, but he tries to de-escalate shit publicly. Vigilant has calmed his personality down since he became a trustee/returned to WO. Barbour said he saw Vigilant being pissy to people on another forum/other fora. I have no doubt that's what Barbour saw, but I hold out hope that Vigilant will hearken to the angels of his better nature now that he's a trustee.

WO really should undo your "muting," Kumi. Whatever anyone else thought you might do, you were always a good poster on WR-2 (for years). You don't always talk about the same stuff.


From what I understand (based on confidential "behind the scenes" discussions), Kumioko requested to be muted. I assume he can ask to be unmuted at any time. But my guess would be, as with Eric, with conditions attached. The same was true for TDA. Unbannings are happening, though slowly and "with conditions."
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"I am a dark bouquet of neuroses..."
- Jerry Holkins, Penny Arcade

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:38 am

Re: Why The Joy left Wikipediocracy

Post by Flip Flopped » Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:04 am

The End wrote:
Flip Flopped wrote:
Kumioko wrote:The tension are due to 3 people mostly, 2 of which are trustees so good luck making that site better as long as they are in there.
Aren't there only two trustees now: Vigilant and Zoloft? Zoloft can be an ass privately, but he tries to de-escalate shit publicly. Vigilant has calmed his personality down since he became a trustee/returned to WO. Barbour said he saw Vigilant being pissy to people on another forum/other fora. I have no doubt that's what Barbour saw, but I hold out hope that Vigilant will hearken to the angels of his better nature now that he's a trustee.

WO really should undo your "muting," Kumi. Whatever anyone else thought you might do, you were always a good poster on WR-2 (for years). You don't always talk about the same stuff.


From what I understand (based on confidential "behind the scenes" discussions), Kumioko requested to be muted. I assume he can ask to be unmuted at any time. But my guess would be, as with Eric, with conditions attached. The same was true for TDA. Unbannings are happening, though slowly and "with conditions."
I thought I saw Kumi publicly request muting on WO? I think it was openly discussed on WS-1, but I may be confused. There was a lot of tension against Kumi, mostly by one WO member. To end it Kumi requested "mute," but I think the alternative was ban.

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:38 am

Re: Why The Joy left Wikipediocracy

Post by Flip Flopped » Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:05 am

The End wrote:
Flip Flopped wrote:
Kumioko wrote:The tension are due to 3 people mostly, 2 of which are trustees so good luck making that site better as long as they are in there.
Aren't there only two trustees now: Vigilant and Zoloft? Zoloft can be an ass privately, but he tries to de-escalate shit publicly. Vigilant has calmed his personality down since he became a trustee/returned to WO. Barbour said he saw Vigilant being pissy to people on another forum/other fora. I have no doubt that's what Barbour saw, but I hold out hope that Vigilant will hearken to the angels of his better nature now that he's a trustee.

WO really should undo your "muting," Kumi. Whatever anyone else thought you might do, you were always a good poster on WR-2 (for years). You don't always talk about the same stuff.


From what I understand (based on confidential "behind the scenes" discussions), Kumioko requested to be muted. I assume he can ask to be unmuted at any time. But my guess would be, as with Eric, with conditions attached. The same was true for TDA. Unbannings are happening, though slowly and "with conditions."
Man, they have banned so many people. Reasonable people, too.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2250
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Why The Joy left Wikipediocracy

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:49 pm

Kumioko wrote:Zoloft can be an ass privately, but he tries to de-escalate shit publicly.

What a cushy setup--instead of being the dictator, he lets others do the shitting for him.

Vigilant has calmed his personality down since he became a trustee/returned to WO. Barbour said he saw Vigilant being pissy to people on another forum/other fora. I have no doubt that's what Barbour saw, but I hold out hope that Vigilant will hearken to the angels of his better nature now that he's a trustee.

He did that on Reddit's r/wikiinaction.

Making him a trustee shows how badly run WO is. Vigilant is only there to stir up shit. He plainly doesn't care what happens to WP except within his primary framework of pissing on Wikipedia principals and their apologists. And you are NOT permitted to discuss HIS personal history, ever.

Flip Flopped wrote:WO really should undo your "muting," Kumi. Whatever anyone else thought you might do, you were always a good poster on WR-2 (for years). You don't always talk about the same stuff.

Probably hopeless. That board is now run by people who want one thing: to control Wikipedia. They don't give a shit about "real reform" or about changing the internal culture, they want power over it and nothing else. Might as well ask for comic-book super powers.

From what I understand (based on confidential "behind the scenes" discussions), Kumioko requested to be muted. I assume he can ask to be unmuted at any time. But my guess would be, as with Eric, with conditions attached. The same was true for TDA. Unbannings are happening, though slowly and "with conditions."

When it started there were no "conditions" other than no outright direct harassment being allowed. Now there are a raft of "seekret conditions" which are not written down anywhere and not discussed with any "outsiders".

Apparently no one on WO is allowed to:

*criticize Wales directly (unless Greg Kohs does it, then it's okay)
*talk about burning down the Wiki-house (unless Vigilant does it, then it's okay)
*talk about WMF's disgusting internal politics and sleazy connections to Web supporters like Google or Craigslist or the Larry Lessig universe
*openly criticize WP administrators (unless a mod who is also a WP admin, like SB Johnny, does it, then it's okay)
*doxx Wikipedians (unless a WO insider does it, then it's okay)
*edit Encyclopedia Dramatica (ditto)
*post openly on right-wing sites or other sites the trustees and sysops "don't like"
*criticize ANY past or present WO insiders (Tippi Hadron is totally off limits)
*act OCD
*discuss unrelated issues (the Off Topic area is dying)
*or play the hypocritical favoritism games that WO insiders play themselves.

Wikipediocracy has become like Wikipedia itself -- feudal and paranoid.

User avatar
Auggie
Sucks
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 5:10 am

Re: Why The Joy left Wikipediocracy

Post by Auggie » Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:13 pm

ericbarbour wrote:Wikipediocracy has become like Wikipedia itself -- feudal and paranoid.


Agreed. And trying to shoehorn Vigilant into the elder statesman role will not end well. Dude can barely hold his shit together.

User avatar
Kumioko
Sucks Mod
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 51 times

Re: Why The Joy left Wikipediocracy

Post by Kumioko » Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:40 am

Yeah that's sorta right. They were going to ban me and I asked Zoloft to mute me rather than a full ban so I could at least see the comments. They might unblock me if I asked but I am not planning on asking. As I see it, commenting there helps that site and t be honest I haven't really seen very many discussions I even want to participate in anyway.
#BbbGate

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:38 am

Re: Why The Joy left Wikipediocracy

Post by Flip Flopped » Sat Aug 26, 2017 3:00 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Flip Flopped wrote:Zoloft can be an ass privately, but he tries to de-escalate shit publicly.

What a cushy setup--instead of being the dictator, he lets others do the shitting for him.
I still cannot reconcile what he says behind closed doors with what he says publicly. I try to like him, but I can't understand his behavior. I end up thinking Strelnikov has him right.

ericbarbour wrote:
Vigilant has calmed his personality down since he became a trustee/returned to WO. Barbour said he saw Vigilant being pissy to people on another forum/other fora. I have no doubt that's what Barbour saw, but I hold out hope that Vigilant will hearken to the angels of his better nature now that he's a trustee.

He did that on Reddit's r/wikiinaction.

Making him a trustee shows how badly run WO is. Vigilant is only there to stir up shit. He plainly doesn't care what happens to WP except within his primary framework of pissing on Wikipedia principals and their apologists. And you are NOT permitted to discuss HIS personal history, ever.
I recall him lashing out at you on Reddit. It probably wouldn't have registered if he also did it to random others on Reddit. It's consistent with his personality to lash out. I think he might be making an effort now. This is the first time I've mentioned that alcohol has crossed my mind when reading him.

ericbarbour wrote:
Flip Flopped wrote:WO really should undo your "muting," Kumi. Whatever anyone else thought you might do, you were always a good poster on WR-2 (for years). You don't always talk about the same stuff.

Probably hopeless. That board is now run by people who want one thing: to control Wikipedia. They don't give a shit about "real reform" or about changing the internal culture, they want power over it and nothing else. Might as well ask for comic-book super powers.
I think it's possible that they've realized "power over Wikipedia" was only ever a pipe dream. Time will tell.

ericbarbour wrote:
From what I understand (based on confidential "behind the scenes" discussions), Kumioko requested to be muted. I assume he can ask to be unmuted at any time. But my guess would be, as with Eric, with conditions attached. The same was true for TDA. Unbannings are happening, though slowly and "with conditions."

When it started there were no "conditions" other than no outright direct harassment being allowed. Now there are a raft of "seekret conditions" which are not written down anywhere and not discussed with any "outsiders".
Some insiders (current and past) openly discussed messing with Scotty Wong's employment. In time (not immediately) it was announced that WO shouldn't be trying to get him fired. WO insiders have done some very low things, without provocation.

ericbarbour wrote:Apparently no one on WO is allowed to:

*criticize Wales directly (unless Greg Kohs does it, then it's okay)
*talk about burning down the Wiki-house (unless Vigilant does it, then it's okay)
*talk about WMF's disgusting internal politics and sleazy connections to Web supporters like Google or Craigslist or the Larry Lessig universe
*openly criticize WP administrators (unless a mod who is also a WP admin, like SB Johnny, does it, then it's okay)
*doxx Wikipedians (unless a WO insider does it, then it's okay)
*edit Encyclopedia Dramatica (ditto)
*post openly on right-wing sites or other sites the trustees and sysops "don't like"
*criticize ANY past or present WO insiders (Tippi Hadron is totally off limits)
*act OCD
*discuss unrelated issues (the Off Topic area is dying)
*or play the hypocritical favoritism games that WO insiders play themselves.

Wikipediocracy has become like Wikipedia itself -- feudal and paranoid.
To the extent HRIP7 wants to discuss interlocking boards and the WMF WO will do that.

SB Johnny is no longer staff.

WO has favored and non-favored Wikipedia admins. It's okay to criticize those that WO deems fair game.

Their top rules seem to be "no criticizing insiders" and no editing ED, with not favoring right-wing sites also being a prime unwritten rule.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2250
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Why The Joy left Wikipediocracy

Post by ericbarbour » Sat Aug 26, 2017 10:10 pm

Flip Flopped wrote:Some insiders (current and past) openly discussed messing with Scotty Wong's employment. In time (not immediately) it was announced that WO shouldn't be trying to get him fired.

Because they wanted Mr. Wieser to participate on their forum. He watches it like a hawk and complains about how "eeevil" it is, but unless he's using an undeclared sock, he hasn't posted much there that I know of. He DID post on Wikipedia Review (original) under the name "Snottywong".

(And who originally outed Scottywong as Biamp employee Scott Wieser on WO back in 2012? Tarantino and Vigilant! http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... f=4&t=1482)

WO insiders have done some very low things, without provocation.

Wikipedia insiders have done thousands of low, and lower, things. I know of several instances where Jimbo himself tried to get journalists and critics fired from their jobs--there are probably other instances we don't even know about. Not to mention the thousands of diffs David Gerard oversighted, including two diffs that showed FT2 was interested in bestiality. Plus many other vile tricks that are mostly forgotten today.

Wikipediocracy is simply imitating Wikipedia, in McGeady's and Burns's sad attempt to get more participation from WP insiders. They failed and won't admit they failed.

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:38 am

Re: Why The Joy left Wikipediocracy

Post by Flip Flopped » Sun Aug 27, 2017 3:09 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Flip Flopped wrote:Some insiders (current and past) openly discussed messing with Scotty Wong's employment. In time (not immediately) it was announced that WO shouldn't be trying to get him fired.

Because they wanted Mr. Wieser to participate on their forum. He watches it like a hawk and complains about how "eeevil" it is, but unless he's using an undeclared sock, he hasn't posted much there that I know of. He DID post on Wikipedia Review (original) under the name "Snottywong".

(And who originally outed Scottywong as Biamp employee Scott Wieser on WO back in 2012? Tarantino and Vigilant! http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... f=4&t=1482)

WO insiders have done some very low things, without provocation.

Wikipedia insiders have done thousands of low, and lower, things. I know of several instances where Jimbo himself tried to get journalists and critics fired from their jobs--there are probably other instances we don't even know about. Not to mention the thousands of diffs David Gerard oversighted, including two diffs that showed FT2 was interested in bestiality. Plus many other vile tricks that are mostly forgotten today.

Wikipediocracy is simply imitating Wikipedia, in McGeady's and Burns's sad attempt to get more participation from WP insiders. They failed and won't admit they failed.
If they wanted ScottyWong to post on WO then threatening his employment was idiotic. Granted he was more of a mover and shaker on WP back in 2012.

I'm not sure I've heard of Wales trying to get anyone fired. That's such a shitty thing to do.

Do you have any copies of the FT2 posts Gerard oversighted?

Post Reply