Vigilant's fantasy viewpoint that Wikipediocracy is a BADSITE

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
Boink Boink
Sucks Fan
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:50 pm
Been thanked: 85 times

Vigilant's fantasy viewpoint that Wikipediocracy is a BADSITE

Post by Boink Boink » Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:32 am

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 24#p326329

He's talking a lot of garbage there, but the line that stood out for me was this claim that Wikipedia considers it a red line for people to contribute to Wikipediocracy, the implication being they ban people for it.

What horseshit.

if you doubt me, take a look at who is commenting on that very thread. It features the disgusting viewpoints of multiple Wikipedia insiders, including multiple active Administrators and even one Arbitrator.

Clearly, Wikipedia not only doesn't ban people for contributing to Wikipediocracy, they absolutely love the fact that being a member of Wikipediocracy allows its officers of state to say out loud what they merely think on Wikipedia.

Vigilant clearly doesn't like the fact he is complicit in this disgusting endeavour, this side show of cruelty to the main event, but he is.

A willing accomplice. He might as well be getting paid for the Foundation.
"Boing!" wrote:If Nubiamerges was blocked with a checkuser block, that means the blocking admin is claiming there's technical information (IP address, user agent...) linking them to another account. Could it be someone using the same IP address as you, for example?
This is a Wikipedia Administrator using Wikipediocracy to solicit an admission of guilt from a blocked user, without telling them that the circumstances clearly show that the CheckUsers have absolutely no technical proof that links them to the blocked Nubiamerges sock.
Boing! wrote:Well, they say they found a technical connection of some sort - but they won't reveal what it is (as that's forbidden by checkuser policy)
A blatant lie, designed to fool the blocked user into giving Wikipedia the sort of personal information they are not entitled to know under Californian privacy laws but which they seem to require to make a sock block stick beyond the weak behavioural match.

In reality, CheckUsers will often publicly reveal the nature of the connection (locale, shared IP, device details) if they feel doing so is necessary. They prefer to keep these details between themselves and speak in more general terms (a connection is "likely" etc), to further the myth that CheckUsers are doing a very complex thing that takes expertise, which discourages the victims of their abuses from being able to file specific actionable complaints to their nominal bosses, one of whom is posting in this very thread, so would know that what is going on here is highly questionable.

CheckUsers are not permitted to share details like actual IP addresses with outsiders, but anyone with even a basic level of experience in performing breaching experiments to identify law breaking in the CheckUser group, knows that they do. Trusted accomplices include of course, Wikipediocracy, who freely pass information back the other way too, since these days It is important for Wikipediocracy to be seen as helpful to their largest customer base, Wikipedia insiders and devotees to the KoolAid.

The rule against socking is without doubt the cult's singularly most important rule. Being a cult, you will not be shocked to learn it is given even more importance than the protection of minors. If you doubt me, well, you're hardly going to find the truth from that lot of over there are you. Not when the things Beeblebrox himself does are the things that show he personally cares more about SOCK than CHILDPROTECT. It is of course no surprise that the owners of Wikipediocracy want no part of their forum being used to challenge the insiders of Wikipedia about such things. No sir. Bad for business. Harmful to Wikipedia-Wikipediocracy relations.

BADSITE indeed. Bunch of kittens licking the cream off Wikipedia's nutsack more like.
Boing! wrote:Yes indeed. It could easily be a known troublemaker pretending to be a sock, to try to get you into socking trouble (a "joe job" as it's known). I've no idea why people do that, but it happens quite a lot.

I doubt anyone will have any idea who it is, though.
Aww, how cute. Look at the Wikipedia Administrator pretending not to know.

Peope do it because it is an effective means of showing Wikipedia is evil. That they all too readily trust tools that they have little understanding of, to make big and potentially life altering decisions for the victims of Wikipedia. People who try to correct the bias in their article, for example.

People do it to make sure that the people who genuinely seem to think SOCK is and should be the most important policy on Wikipedia, to the exclusion of even BASIC COMMON DECENCY, pay a high price for their negligence. If you want Wikipedia to operate as a cult, then outsiders shall treat you as if you are one. They will not reason with you, they will not bargain with you, they will send in the tanks in the hope of toppling over one of your oil lamps and roasting all you despicable fuckers alive.

Hard to find fault with it as a moral code, really. No doubt Wikipedicoracy finds it distasteful. I dare say it is much more pleasant to lick cream off a nutsack when it isn't on fire!
"Boing" wrote:Most web sites have far better management tools than the crude Checkuser.
No they don't! Quite the opposite in fact. Most websites are banned by law from engaging in the sort of tracking and data collection that Wikipedia uses to augment its CheckUser tool. Some of this is legal, some of this is illegal.

When Facebook does it, it's a scandal. When Wikipedia does it, crickets. Wikipediocracy has played their willing part in this, clearly. Just as you won't find Wikipedia insiders being all that keen to tell the media the truth about what they do and why, you won't find any blog writers on Wikipediocracy being allowed to either.

Wikipedia is conspicuous by its failure to warn you It uses cookies, for example, and certainly doesn't want any part of complying with how those laws have developed and now require websites to give you more information than a basic admission of use. Wikipedia was using AI to make judgements about who anonymous people really are and thus deny them access, well before anyone was raising the ridiculous flag that AI might one day kill us all. It is merely a tool, a tool that poses no threat if the users of it are transparent. Wikipedia is a closed book by design. Cults gonna do what cults gonna do.

Should this be allowed? Is it wrong that Wikipedia has never been held accountable for such things?

If you're hoping to see such a debate on Wikipediocracy, you will be waiting a very long time.

All this comment was, was an expression of frustration that Wikipedia doesn't have even more powerful tools to ensure its most important policy, SOCK, is enforceable. Since currently, it is a rather open secret that if you want to get around it, you can. The only people who get caught are the idiots, and the people performing breaching experiments.
Boing wrote:The WMF says that non-public personal information (IP address, user agent) is kept for a maximum of 90 days. But I haven't seen any statement of how long checkuser results are kept - they're in a separate checkuser database. And I don't see anything that could stop an individual checkuser admin from keeping a private record for as long as they want.
Lol.

I see something that can prevent it. Effective oversight of the CheckUser group by ArbCom, their nominal in house bosses, and the Ombuds Commission, their nominal independent overseers. Theoretically between the two, if they are functioning correctly, it should be absolutely impossible for a corrupt CheckUser who is operating their own off book database of PII in contravention of Californian law, to profit from it. They could never ever make a block stick, if it could be shown a crucial link in the chain, was illegally held (and more importantly often illegally obtained PII).

Breaching experiments are fun because they prove behind any reasonable doubt that not only do these critical functions not do their job, in many cases, they are complicit.

It is almost laughable to think that their first means of ensuring that people cannot file effective complaints against Wikipedia regarding the illegal collection and retention of PII, is that they require as a FIRST INSTANCE the you give Wikipedia even more PII before they will even open a complaint.

This is no doubt illegal in California.

The very last place you will find discussion of these things, is Wikipediocracy. We already know for example that their advice to anyone seeking to sue Wikipedia, is DON'T DO IT, YOU WILL NOT WIN, DON'T EVEN TRY.

To even acknowledge it is a thing, this overt complicity, would terribly upset their Abritrator clientele, and put them in the awkward position of having to explain why they haven't taken action against people who are doing illegal shit in the supposed defence of Wikipedia, some of whom are sat right next to them in that very forum.

It probably breaks some Wikipediocracy rule to even dare to experiment on their members.

Bad site indeed! Don't make me laugh.
"Beeblebrox" wrote:feel like this sort of thing is a bonding experience between the folks here who actually edit Wikipedia and the ones who do not. It's a real taste of what we deal with on WP when someone just won't shut up and listen to anyone, and insists on making everything about themselves
Wow.

The Arbitrator speaks. And he shows you exactly what It must be like for a person who has very good reasons to suspect CheckUsers are doing illegal shit, and they take that complaint to ArbCom.

Yes indeed, the bond is clear. Very clear.

How very terrible it must be for you.

How annoying it must be when people refuse to unquestionably accept what you tell them, even though to actual novices it is usually pretty fucking clear that what you are telling them is utter bullshit the has no grounding in policy, much less common decency or the actual law.

Why the FUCK would ANYONE even want to listen to a Wikipedia Arbitrator who shows this level of astonishing contempt for their most important policies?

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2821&p=25370&#p25370

Does Wikipediocracy look like the sort of place that is in ANY WAY interested in challenging their member Beeblebrox over this patently immoral act that shows he is 100% unfit to be a Wikipedia Arbitrator (the office being rare in that it is filed by secret ballot only, so it is actually the easiest office to attain for complete shithouses whose only real interest in the role is the personal power and ability to Defend Wikipedia using immoral and indeed illegal means)?

They want no part of it.

They don't even accept registrations from people who might pose such a threat.

Bad site indeed.

Wikipediocracy has no more interest in the victims of Wikipedia than Wikipedia itself.

Wikipediocracy has no interest in challenging the powers that be at Wikipedia because it is bad for business.

They are joined at the hip.

Seriously, this is an actual Wikipedia Administrator commenting....
ScottishFinnishRadish wrote:Yes, the newspapers will certainly care about some forum with a few dozen active editors not answering your repeated questions in the way you'd like them answered. Jesus Christ. We don't even care, why do you think someone else would?
We indeed.

Then there's this...
"Beeblebrox" wrote:My seldom-cited essay WP:BYENOW (T-H-L) seems relevant here
Posted directly below the post where Vigilant claims Wikipedia bans people for being members of this so called bad site, we see the reality. Wikipediocracy is now the place where Wikipedia Arbitrators get to promote their essays in defence of Wikipedia's typical everyday bullshit.

Would it be unfair to say Beeblbrox, with Jake's complicity, is these days actively flaunting the fact that on Wikipediocracy, Vigilant is the outlier. The oddity. The unwelcome stink. And as we can all see, it's quite cruel, because Vigilant barely poses a threat to Wikipedia at all as it is. Nobody who can't figure out that NLT doesn't prohibit simple statements of fact, such as I have sent the WMF a Cease and Desist, poses any kind of problem for Wikipedia. You wouldn't call that a bad site, but a ship of fools.

As a neutered kitty cat reduced to licking the cream off Wikipedia's balls, he is obviously never going to be allowed by Jake (or Jake's master Beeblebrox) to take this thread where it now logically needs to go.....

Beebelbrox wants people to read his eassy, so we will, and we are unsurprised to see it quickly shows he is an asshole.....
If you are a marketing or public relations professional who has been directed to this essay, please realize, the intent is just to help you understand the reality of the situation. And that reality is that you are in the wrong place. You won't succeed at doing your job here, and trying to do it is going to annoy the unpaid volunteers who maintain the encyclopedia, and will probably backfire on you and your client anyway, so it would be best for you, your clients, and Wikipedia if you just accept that and do your job elsewhere.
Last we forget the victim in all this came to Wikipedia and then Wikipediocracy because potential customers were coming to him with odd questions that only made sense once he realised Wikipedia was giving a deeply unfair portrayal of his business. An article so bad it has to be edited to remove source mis-use (a typical sign that someone has been using Wikipedia to smear a business rival).

If Wikipedia was following COI and other policy, then by now the victim would be in a position to make such edits himself, and save assholes like (Wikipediocracy member and Wikipedia devotee) Hemiauchenia the terrible burden of having to fix the articles that have the potential to do great harm to individuals. A real annoyance for them, when as we saw, Hemiauchenia's first instinct was to smear the victim with false allegations of historical COI violations. Unsurprisingly, nobody on Wikipediocracy called him out for his lies. Exposing Wikipedia editors as liars just wouldn't do.

How quickly Wikipedia (and so by extension Wikipediocracy) forgets these things, in their desire to paint the victim as the offender. A dirty horrible self promoter.

Yes indeed.

Now we see the truth. Now we understand why posts like these are being made.....

[quote"Giraffe Stapler"]I await the inevitable locking of this thread and the banning of adamovicm, who thinks it's a good idea to make veiled threats to unknown people online[/quote]
Giraffe Stapler wrote:I await the inevitable locking of this thread and the banning of adamovicm, who doesn't seem to understand that we aren't Wikipedia's help desk.
Has he got that shit on cut and paste, or what?

Not for the first time, a Wikipediocracy member who doesn't declare a Wikipedia account, does a passable impression of someone whose presence on Wikipediocracy is merely because they are being paid to look out for Wikipedia's interests.

Bye now! Lol

Yes indeed. Lock the thread, before people can remind themselves that Wikipedia doesn't come out of even a seemingly cut and dried example of novice meets reality of a cult, very well at all.

Shut it down before anyone can realise how an actual bad site could help the user and the cause of Wikipedia criticism.

How hilarious to think that by their own admission, Wikipediocracy is now a very small forum where very little is taken seriously by its own members, who have barely anything to discuss anyway given the large and ever growing list of topics that are considered bad for business, so the idea that they have any real need to lock threads at all, is quite curious. Unless you realise that this thread has the potential to harm Wikipedia (not because it is special, sure, rather that by design, every situation on Wikipedia ends up being an example of how the insiders have absolutely no intention of following their own rules, because that is too hard, and they are pathologically disinclined toward the pursuit of being good people).

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Vigilant's fantasy viewpoint that Wikipediocracy is a BADSITE

Post by wexter » Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:11 pm

In reality, CheckUsers will often publicly reveal the nature of the connection (locale, shared IP, device details)
The checkuser "rules" can be used in a retaliatory way - and they are used in a retaliatory and unethical (even criminal) way.


The net effect is that blocked users are at risk of being "doxed" by location or by IP address - or doxing can be rationalized by looking back at differences in edit history.

As you can see in the quote below "doxing" by project participants is allowable with only a suggestion made to prevent it from happening as a matter of policy.

A personal judgement can be made that revealing an IP address (or more) will protect the platform against disruption. Disruption could be trying to get an article controlled by an established user corrected! and you risk being doxed as a result. The day to day administration of Wikipedia is based on retaliation! The ANI Administrators Notice Board Incidents for speaks to the retaliatory nature of the platform.

While Wikipedia, being a social network, speaks to the person via disputes of endless length and massive numbers; the way to speak against Wikipedia is to speak to "the weak policy, process, and product."

A retaliatory policy which explicitly supports doxing is egregious..

When the WMF (foundation) hands issues of misconduct back to Wikipedia its part of a strategy to be "judgement proof" in a misuse/exploitation of "clean hands."

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy
Privacy policy
Main articles: Privacy policy and Access to nonpublic personal data policy
On Wikimedia projects, privacy policy considerations are of tremendous importance. Unless someone is violating policy with their actions (e.g. massive bot vandalism or spam) and revealing information about them is necessary to stop the disruption, it is a violation of the privacy policy to reveal their IP, whereabouts, or other information sufficient to identify them, unless they have already revealed this information themselves on the project.

Information release: Even if the user is committing abuse, it's best not to reveal personal information if possible. ("a nice suggestion - where are the internal controls? they are nonexistent" wexter)

Generally, ("that is a nice suggestion!" wexter) do not reveal IPs. Only give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If detailed information is provided, make sure the person you are giving it to is a trusted person and will not reveal it himself/herself.
If the user has said they're from somewhere and the IP confirms it, it's not releasing private information to confirm it if needed.
If you're in any doubt, give no detail.
Chat GPT bullet points of what I am saying;
Doxing: Doxing refers to the act of publicly revealing or publishing private or personal information about an individual without their consent, typically with malicious intent. In this context, the concern is that the checkuser "rules" can be utilized in a retaliatory manner, putting blocked users at risk of being doxed by disclosing their location or IP address.

Misconduct and Clean Hands: The reference to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) handing issues of misconduct back to Wikipedia is related to the allocation of responsibility and decision-making authority. By doing so, the WMF may be attempting to avoid being held liable for any misconduct or exploitation allegations. The mention of "clean hands" refers to the principle that a party seeking legal redress or protection should have acted in good faith and without misconduct themselves.

Retaliatory Policy: The statement suggests that a policy supporting doxing, even implicitly, is considered egregious. It implies that a policy that allows or encourages retaliatory actions, such as doxing, is objectionable from a legal and ethical standpoint.
Last edited by wexter on Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

adamovicm
Sucks
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Vigilant's fantasy viewpoint that Wikipediocracy is a BADSITE

Post by adamovicm » Thu Jun 01, 2023 3:47 pm

I'm reading your posts very carefully Boink Boink.

Nobody knows who that guy Vigilant is? He is kind of outlier.

If I understand correctly few guys runs this Wikipediocracy: Zoloft (Stanistani), Jake, Tarantino, Vigilant (to the certain extent).

They are a little bit soft towards Wikipedia admins and unknown trolls.
It doesn't necessary mean they have an interest in being nice to them, but it could happen.

What is your story boink boink? Can you tell me something about yourself?

User avatar
Boink Boink
Sucks Fan
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:50 pm
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Vigilant's fantasy viewpoint that Wikipediocracy is a BADSITE

Post by Boink Boink » Thu Jun 01, 2023 4:19 pm

"Vigilant" wrote:Do you understand that sometimes even though something isn't 'policy' that it is, in fact, the way things work?
Everyone remotely familiar with Wikipedia understands that.

What I don't understand is why Wikipediocracy is infested with the very Administrators and Arbitrators who are responsible on a daily basis for ensuring that Wikipedia policy is not descriptive, it is whatever you need it to say to get your friends out of trouble and the enemies of Wikipedia expelled.

Subjects of Wikipedia articles being widely seen as enemies, especially if they dare to follow Wikipedia policy in a sensible yet naive way.

To remind those slack jawed fucks at Wikipediocracy, the COI policy allows for article subjects to "remove unambiguous violations of the biography of living persons policy".

According to Wikipediocracy member AndyTheGrump, the editor in question is blocked indefinitely because he didn't act with more professionalism.

Legal action is the only way that Wikipedia will be forced to admit there is a HUGE gulf between what its piece of shit volunteers do on a daily basis, and what policy appears to suggest is what guides their editing.

The code of Conduct now allows for the WMF to be held to account for the very obvious fact that no, English Wikipedia policy isn't remotely mapped to the Code. People there do abuse their power, they do leverage their experience, and they do engage in psychological manipulation.

English Wikipedia policy is so toothless under shitehouses like Beeblebrox, it can't even prevent the WP:HARASSing behaviour of participants in this dispute when it is occurring at Beeblebrox's favourite hangout, Wikipediocracy. These people have clearly forgotten the precedent that external posts are admissible.

The facts are clear. The Numbeo article is unbalanced, and cannot ever be neutral. There are clear signs that this came about in part due to being edited by morons, commercial rivals, and more importantly, by editors whose wholly negative view of the company is clear from their public posts at Wikipediocracy. Wikipedia is currently acting as a megaphone and a legitimizer of criticism that may not even be reliable.

Wikipedia editors know all this, but they've persistently and maliciously prevented the article from being deleted, and otherwise shown a callous indifference, in full knowledge that without their assitance, subjects cannot follow the COI policy even if they want to.

A judge would agree wholeheartedly that if the COI policy (guideline!) requires you to work with the likes of Andy and Beeblebrox, the policy is null and void (no local project can have a policy that nullifies the Code).

User avatar
Boink Boink
Sucks Fan
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:50 pm
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Vigilant's fantasy viewpoint that Wikipediocracy is a BADSITE

Post by Boink Boink » Thu Jun 01, 2023 6:14 pm

adamovicm wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 3:47 pm
I'm reading your posts very carefully Boink Boink.

Nobody knows who that guy Vigilant is? He is kind of outlier.

If I understand correctly few guys runs this Wikipediocracy: Zoloft (Stanistani), Jake, Tarantino, Vigilant (to the certain extent).

They are a little bit soft towards Wikipedia admins and unknown trolls.
It doesn't necessary mean they have an interest in being nice to them, but it could happen.

What is your story boink boink? Can you tell me something about yourself?
Think of me as Batman.

Wikipedia criticism is a hobby for me, so like the Wikipedia editors, I choose to do it only as an anonymous pastime. Who I am doesn't matter. What I say scares the crap out of Wikipedians.

Both Wikipedia and their Wikipediocracy partners have tried many times to expose my identity. They want to intimidate me into silence. But I won't be silenced. This is of course completely against Wikipedia policy, but when people like Beeblebrox are the ultimate power behind Wikipedia policy, what can you do?

They have quite literally worked together on the task, wrongly assuming I care if by some miracle one of their guesses proves to be correct. I actually have a lot of fun with it. It makes them so mad when I remind them that I deliberately never confirm or deny if their guesses are correct, just to enjoy their frustration.

If you believe Wikipedocracy, I am scary enough to have earned their highest most serious ban. I am breach of it if I attend a Wikipedia event, even though they have no clue who I am. That's kind of their logic, the morons.

I can go to any event where, to take a random example, Ritchie attends. I do like a beer. And I do like a fight.

As far as I know, Wikipedia has never once tried to sue me/them. I think we all know why....It didn't take long for me to establish that the ban in question is based on an illegal use of CheckUser, and people like Hemiauchenia were an integral part in achieving it.

People like me have every right to use violence against our oppressors. What other options are left? Wikipedia ignores evidence based complaints. There is no meaningful independent oversight. It is prohibitively expensive to sue.

Based on a thousand years of human history therefore, we have the legal and moral right to use violence against the people who are denying us our rights, for no better reason than they are born assholes who absolutely love having unchecked power over others.

Some people think it is ridiculous to view a ban from Wikipedia as a violation of your human rights. Most of Wikipediocracy I bet. Perhaps I do too.

I regularly point out to unhappy Wikipedians like Beeblebrox when they'we making a big noise about what they think and what they want and are meeting opposition, that they have no rights at all on Wikipedia except to fuck off. Despite being one hundred percent true and an accurate reflection of what they signed up to when they embarked upon a hobby that they poured years of their life into, it still upsets them. I find it so amusing. This is why Wikipediocracy do not want me around. I upset their best customers, the worst editors Wikipedia has to offer.

The threat I pose to Wikipedia, is that when the Foundation goes to the United Nations describing access to Wikipedia as a "fundamental human right", I remember that shit.

They do that to make money and, while not necessarily their aim, a side effect is that this keeps scumbags like Beeblebrox in their hobby. They also do this to gain influence over lawmakers and educators to obtain legitimacy for Wikipedia the brand, even though they have singularly failed in their original mission, creating an encyclopedia.

I see how the sort of Wikipedia scum Wikipediocracy gives safe harbour to, laugh and joke about their unchecked power, and show absolutely no sign that they even care that Wikipedia is not and likely never will be an encyclopedia, and it ticks me off.

I ask myself, if access to Wikipedia is fundamental human right, then if I am who they say I am, has the permanent and unappealable denial of my right been handled in the way you expect it to be?

Was the law followed? Was their own policy followed?

Did they at ANY TIME treat me with the dignity and respect every human is entitled to in the matter of the denial of a "fundamental human right"?

I conclude that no, I was not.

Every case I look into, features similar levels of injustice.

A judge would too.

Since Wikipedians are quite happy being judge and jury in the matters they control, I have already passed judgement on Wikipedia for the same reasons. It must die. The sentence is the sentence. It cannot be appealed. I will never stop.

I exist to fight injustice on Wikipedia and the injustice that is Wikipedia, which means kicking the heads in of the bad actors, and working on destabilising the very foundations of Wikipedia upon which their sorry asses depend.

I will take their money, I will take their enjoyment, I will take everything they value.

And I will do it with big smile on my face.

This is who I am, this is what I am doing.

You will be part of this movement soon. Wikipediocracy will soon ban you as a threat to Wikipedia.

My advice to you is to stop labouring under the false impression anyone involved with Wikipedia or Wikipediocracy give a damn about you. They literally don't care if Wikipedia is causing you active and long lasting harm. I would say it is a fair bet that the Nubiamerges sock could be one of them.

At this point, Wikipedia hates you, but they are happy because they know you are locked out forever and can never get back in. There is no point in you going back in even if you could. They will never delete the article, but they will never admit that deletion is the only outcome policy calls for. It is impossible to fix. It is and always will be unbalanced, biased.

They. Do. Not. Care.

Beeblebrox is one of the most powerful editors on Wikipedia.

He. Does. Not. Care.

You have have already learned everything you need to know about Wikipediocracy. They take Wikipedia's side by default. They absurdly think that your predicament is a problem only of the system, not the people. Forgetting that there is no Wikipedia system. Wikipedia is a cult. What happens on Wikipedia is ENTIRELY down to whether and indeed how the people choose to discharge their ethical responsibilities.

That is the system. That is why the system is rotten. Because the people are rotten.

Replace the people with better people would improve the system. An encyclopedia might very well be the result.

Naturally, the current people object to the idea they are the problem and fight tooth and nail to avoid being replaced. It is why Wikipedia is best seen as a failed experiment. A good idea, failed in practice.

Wikipediocracy doesn't think the people being rotten is a bad thing, and as you can see, they encourage it. They enjoy it.

They realised long ago that Wikipedia cannot be reformed, but because most of them are active and committed Wikipedians, they cannot bring themselves to except Wikipedia must die.

Toying with you, laughing at you, upsetting you, is like a sport to them. A distraction from their own failure to carry their own mission to its conclusion.

Your only way forward is legal action.

The likes of Beeblebrox and AndyTheGrump and Hemiauchenia face absolutely no consequences for their disgusting behaviour. You need to make them face real consequences.

Believe me, having your story published in Serbian media, and having that feed into EU law, will result in serious consequences for these editors. Times have changed and they are still changing, especially in the Foundation, which these days has a much better understanding of their need to come down hard on editors who abuse their power and flagrantly violate the things the Foundation have been forced to write to prove they are a responsible outfit.

adamovicm
Sucks
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Vigilant's fantasy viewpoint that Wikipediocracy is a BADSITE

Post by adamovicm » Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:40 pm

Boink Boink wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 6:14 pm
If you believe Wikipedocracy, I am scary enough to have earned their highest most serious ban.
I went into threads there that are mentioning Crownsnest and someone claimed that you are MickMacNee as well.
That you are smart, use many pseudonyms (allegedly), scare people (I could see it), I've seen the post here from Crownsnest and it looks like your style of writing.
Boink Boink wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 6:14 pm
People like me have every right to use violence against our oppressors. What other options are left? Wikipedia ignores evidence based complaints. There is no meaningful independent oversight. It is prohibitively expensive to sue.
eeehm... peaceful protests, perhaps?

Boink Boink wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 6:14 pm
They do that to make money and, while not necessarily their aim, a side effect is that this keeps scumbags like Beeblebrox in their hobby.
I don't think it's really big money, considering the organization's size. I found pity that they rely on volunteers for shitload of work. People need money for living. And while it is acceptable that some editors sporadically edit some pages, people who do a shitload of work for them should be paid. Period. A very weird organization they are.

Boink Boink wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 6:14 pm
You will be part of this movement soon. Wikipediocracy will soon ban you as a threat to Wikipedia.

I would say it is a fair bet that the Nubiamerges sock could be one of them.
Wikipediocracy could ban me or not, their business. I think they will not ban me, but I have thought the same about Wikipedia. You could ban me as well. Who knows what happens next. But beware, I am not destructive and my identity is fully exposed, that means I have to be sure not to enter any legal problem.

Nubiamerges sock looks like being someone else from these two forums, but no one wants to claim "yes, that's me". Maybe you? Who knows.
My advice to you is to stop labouring under the false impression anyone involved with Wikipedia or Wikipediocracy give a damn about you. They literally don't care if Wikipedia is causing you active and long lasting harm.
I had enjoyed conversation with some people (especially Jake, and that guy eppur) , but some others were REALLY annoying.

Believe me, having your story published in Serbian media, ....
I don't count on Serbian media. If I go that direction, I'd rather collaborate with countries that are hostile to Wikipedia, i.e. India, Russia, China, whatever.

User avatar
Bbb23sucks
Sucker
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
Location: The Astral Plane
Has thanked: 1255 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: Vigilant's fantasy viewpoint that Wikipediocracy is a BADSITE

Post by Bbb23sucks » Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:52 pm

adamovicm wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:40 pm
Boink Boink wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 6:14 pm
People like me have every right to use violence against our oppressors. What other options are left? Wikipedia ignores evidence based complaints. There is no meaningful independent oversight. It is prohibitively expensive to sue.
eeehm... peaceful protests, perhaps?
In France, the government has shot peaceful protestors with grenade launchers.
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

Email: wikipediasucks@disroot.org

Petition to ban Bbb23Wikipedia AlternativeDonate to help French strikers

User avatar
Bbb23sucks
Sucker
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
Location: The Astral Plane
Has thanked: 1255 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: Vigilant's fantasy viewpoint that Wikipediocracy is a BADSITE

Post by Bbb23sucks » Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:21 pm

adamovicm wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 3:47 pm
I'm reading your posts very carefully Boink Boink.

Nobody knows who that guy Vigilant is? He is kind of outlier.

If I understand correctly few guys runs this Wikipediocracy: Zoloft (Stanistani), Jake, Tarantino, Vigilant (to the certain extent).

They are a little bit soft towards Wikipedia admins and unknown trolls.
It doesn't necessary mean they have an interest in being nice to them, but it could happen.

What is your story boink boink? Can you tell me something about yourself?
I know his reddit account: https://old.reddit.com/u/WOVigilant
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

Email: wikipediasucks@disroot.org

Petition to ban Bbb23Wikipedia AlternativeDonate to help French strikers

User avatar
Fyfe
Sucks Noob
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2022 5:50 am

Re: Vigilant's fantasy viewpoint that Wikipediocracy is a BADSITE

Post by Fyfe » Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:32 am

adamovicm wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:40 pm
Believe me, having your story published in Serbian media, ....
I don't count on Serbian media. If I go that direction, I'd rather collaborate with countries that are hostile to Wikipedia, i.e. India, Russia, China, whatever.
I'd give Russia a miss due to their bombing Ukrainians.

adamovicm
Sucks
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Vigilant's fantasy viewpoint that Wikipediocracy is a BADSITE

Post by adamovicm » Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:21 am

Fyfe wrote:
Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:32 am
I'd give Russia a miss due to their bombing Ukrainians.
Certainly, India and China sound like a better idea. It's better to avoid being associated with Russia, at least until this shit is finished. I'm sorry so many people die right now. That war sucks!

Post Reply