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.
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: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?
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.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)
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.
Aww, how cute. Look at the Wikipedia Administrator pretending not to know.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.
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!
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."Boing" wrote:Most web sites have far better management tools than the crude Checkuser.
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.
Lol.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.
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.
Wow."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
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....
We indeed.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?
Then there's this...
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."Beeblebrox" wrote:My seldom-cited essay WP:BYENOW (T-H-L) seems relevant here
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.....
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 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.
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]
Has he got that shit on cut and paste, or what?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.
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).