The reason CrowsNest got banned

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

The reason CrowsNest got banned

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:46 am

So, here we are, a refugee again. Will they ever learn? You don't make a mug out of me, and expect there to be no consequences. Gone are the days when what happened at Wikipediocracy, could ever remain a secret.

Recently muted by Zoloft, I am here to report my experience. Unsurprisingly, few will detect any real change in how the place works, even though Greg can hardly be blamed now, since he has been on his holidays somewhere during this entire incursion. Zoloft initially muted me at the same time as Graaf, as a result of this thread apparently.....

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... f=8&t=9063

He said nothing except a perfunctory "enough of the both of you", no explanatory email or PM, just that piece of characteristically arrogant and dismissive crap. Considering I'd done fuck all except post a couple of times in there, naturally I felt pissed, but I waited an appropriate time to see if the weasel would grow a conscience. He did not.

So I pressed, initially asking him to notify the board of something he had apparently overlooked - muted people can't answer PMs, and I had been sent one from the wandering island hopper known as Sashi, who mysteriously still persists with treating those jokers as if they know anything or were not born in barns. Zoloft of course then duly posted a snarky thread, sticking the boot in.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... =13&t=9086

In an email reply, he also tried to offer this up as a reason for the muting.....
As has been stated, telling people they are stupid, or have limited reading ability, or getting combative when disagreed with, are bad forum habits.
He of course pointed to no specific posts where I had done this, and even if he had, it would have been hypocritical, since in that very same thread I had been insulted by no less than three users, Anroth, Ming and AndyTheGrump

The latter only jumping in because of his enduring butthurt at losing an argument with me months ago, where he proved he doesn't have the coding skills of a child. The other two had similarly recently suffered embarrassment, and having failed in their attempts to have me ejected before, had begun resorting to this sort of nonsense, all apparently acceptable to Zoloft and his ideas of good behaviour. So you can see how applying those standards only to me in that thread, would stick in the throat.

After making those points, and still politely, in a reply, the prick just left me hanging. Only after prodding a second time for a decent explanation, did he further embarass himself, critically so. Despite trying to refer back to his first email as if it was still somehow the reason, he finally admitted what is most likely the truth.....
I gave you an explanation. To expand upon it, when one or two people were complaining about you, I felt that was not enough to mute you. When that increased to half a dozen, and people I respect, who have made significant contributions to the site said they were leaving, and named your copious posts and poor attitude towards others as a cause, I muted you.
So, Wikipediocracy's well earned reputation as nothing but a clique for oversensitive snowflakes who can't handle being disagreed with and will eventually run to mommy for assitance, is alive and well.

They have continually lied to me, pretended like I'd never have to suffer this sort of indignity if I just didn't engage in said bad behaviours. And as anyone can see, I did not, and had not for a long while, heeding prior warnings. Ultimately this wasn't out of any respect for the locals or the slimy mudsucker in charge, it was idle curiosity, a wondering ify just how long it would take for him to crumble in the face of the whining and tantrums of the people who were increasingly being embarassed by my superior knowledge and rhetorical skills.

And that really isn't hard to do when you're dealing with people who are still Wikipedians and/or who treat Wikipedia criticism as some kind of hobby. Unreconstructed Wikipediot JCM was naturally the first to put me on ignore, as he tediously reminded everyone of every other day, like a proper little bitch. Similar whining soon followed from others, the staff never told them to shut the fuck up on the grounds it was clearly their choice to ignore me and if they were serious, they'd never take the slightest interest in what I was saying ever again.

But Zoloft is apparently too scared of losing the combined contributions of those stellar posters, which frankly doesn't amount to much, to really stand by the idea the forum isn't just a sad little clubhouse of wikidouche friends, virtually all of whom are pretty damn devoted to Wikipedia, if not in whole, then in significant part.

Since Zoloft wants to protect these snivelling little cowards in their safe space, I invite them over here, to neutral ground, to see what it would have really been like for them, had I been truly allowed to say what I think of their ill-thought out views and analyses.

We all know from past experience that none of them dare venture outside the woodshed, except Kingsindian, and he can fuck off, I've had my fill of him acting like he can pick and choose when he's going to chime in to criticize someone, and when he can leave, declaring he isn't obligated to respond, like he really is literally a King.

The cowards of Wikipediocracy are all known as the ever present old guard from years gone by - they of course aren't able to attract any decent new posters with a management as cravenly corrupt as that. What ties them all together, was this snivelling attitude of it being acceptable to hide behind the ignore function when they were hearing things they didn't like, but can't or won't offer a rebuttal to.

All told, nothing has changed. Albeit without Greg, there is less grammar douchery, but also less respect for for management basics, like good titles and merging/splitting.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: The reason CrowsNest got banned

Post by Graaf Statler » Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:23 pm

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.
And, Erika is with one leg in Wikipedia, and the other leg in what you could call the resistance. (Renée, you and me.) So one moment she agrees with us, and the other moment she complains by the staff and mute me. And, I don't know if you it perceived, some hard core Wikipediaas came in with there Dutch arbcom story's, how right my global ban was, and wiki shit in general. So, Wikipediocrazy became a little brother of Wikipedia, and they all started to complain. The result was you and I were mute, I only don't understand why Renée is not mute.

Wikipediocarzy isn't a critical forum, that is all. It's a place for disappointed wikipedians to rest, grumble and to recover, so they are fit for Wikipedia again. And if you understand that, there is not any problem. And, for me Zoloft did a very good job, because he understood it was not good for me anymore. Because, Erika and the rest are a part of the system what hurt me. Many of her "friends" did me serious harm. I don't say she did, but she is a part of it for me. Wikipediocrazy is simple not a save place for me. By the way, it's the second time I am mute because of complains of madam Erika. Let here go back to Wikipedia, there she belongs and is she happy. She will never make a choice at the end, and will always keep one leg in Wikipedia.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: The reason CrowsNest got banned

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:06 pm

Zoloft was just stringing you along dude. He knew you'd never fit in there, he just didn't have the balls to try and explain to you what would happen, and didn't want to lose your custom elsewhere. I know all about the place, there's not much you can teach me about it really.

Explicit promises were made to me about what would happen if I adhered to basic behavioural standards. Which I did. And yet unsurprisingly, this was not enough to avoid being lumped in with you, in the ejector seat, as we lost out in the popularity contest that Wikipediocracy has always been about. Sucks to be you, as you were obviously an unwitting victim of this cliquey bullshit, which of course is just a sick parody of the workings of the mothership - Wikipedia.

Me, I do this for science, I knew the rules of the game going into it, and the main players. Zoloft is no mystery to me, he was born to disgrace himself, it would have been more of a shock had been able to hold his ground and honour his promises.

I do this so people know exactly what the place is, how it works, meaning it remains in its position of total and utter irrelevance as a critical force, ignored by everyone except the crazies, pseudo-critics and Wikipedians looking for a club house. I'd have you back in there if I could, they were beginning to get properly annoyed.

User avatar
sashi
Sucks Critic
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:01 am
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: The reason CrowsNest got banned

Post by sashi » Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:28 pm

Welcome here, CN. It's taken you a while to get here. One reason I was at WPO is that I asked at one point for you to be let back in, since you apparently weren't coming here in answer to Strelnikov's call some months back.

I don't understand the incursion into WP. I hadn't noticed the change from muted to banned, but I would have to imagine it was for that particular excess (12 on a scale of 11...) "little girl"... WTF was that?

The thread Captain Occam popped up about Eric's book with Peter Damian over there is very interesting. Cirt is everywhere, even keeping a CUP-"class" author from getting the book so much work went into published.

correction: CUA (Catholic University of America?) not CUP (Cambridge U. Press); I misread.
Last edited by sashi on Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: The reason CrowsNest got banned

Post by Graaf Statler » Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:09 pm

I don't know what to think. If CrowsNest is talking, writing, it sounds complete logical to me, I can't understand others don't understand were he is talking about, and that makes it so
confusing for me. Every word fits in the context, and they mute him!
Are they trolling? Are they so stupid? Don't they want to understand what he is saying? The people there seems to be in a kind of trance, they deny the true.

How can someone claim to run a Wikipedia critical forum, and mute the critics because the Wikipedians get upset? It's so illogical!
Its madness, Wikipedia is madness, everything connected to Wikipedia is complete madness.
But what makes it frighten, is the fact they think they have the right to behave themself in this way!

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: The reason CrowsNest got banned

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:03 am

Sashi, I was just trying to do her a favour. She didn't have email enabled when I looked, and instead of engaging with me, she ran straight to the nest of vipers and began treating me like a fool, so I informed her she's not so important or deserving of sympathy that she can't be made a useful idiot. She's a hopeless addict, and she's heading for a huge crisis. She hasn't even begun to scratch the surface of what kind of hell she might be forced to endure on Wikipedia, nor has she yet properly figured out the true nature of the fragility of her existence on Wikipediocracy.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: The reason CrowsNest got banned

Post by Graaf Statler » Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:06 pm

You can't help here, because at the moment you try she will turn herself against you. She is in what I call the What Is In A Man's Mind stadium.
Her brains, and not any human brain, is able to see Wikipedia in the right perspective, and being a part of it. As long she is with one feet in Wikipedia you can't help here.
That was the reason I gave here the only right advice, make as many socks you can and get blocked. And I know were I am talking about, I was a victim myself, I have been trapped myself in Wikipedia, and I have helped other victims on line. As long as she is even the smallest part of wikipedia, she will be blinded.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: The reason CrowsNest got banned

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:37 pm

As hopeless a case as she is, I don't think she warrants much discussion here.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: The reason CrowsNest got banned

Post by Graaf Statler » Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:17 pm

No, I don't think so, and that's a pity. But she was a part of the system, she wrote most of Katherine Maher's bio! She believed them!
But, I know who here "friends" were, because Wikidata were she is active is a almost dutch wiki/pedia media based project, because it's extreem attractive fo autists. But that is a taboo in the wiki mouvement to mention, because that's no handcap. That are fine colleges, and the best sysops and Arb's of the world!

And I think she is not able to to admit she is complete fooled by them. Because, it is for me clear were all that extremism and irrationalism comes from. Out of the the confused autistic brains of the Wikipedians.....

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: The reason CrowsNest got banned

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:55 pm

CrowsNest wrote:But Zoloft is apparently too scared of losing the combined contributions of those stellar posters, which frankly doesn't amount to much, to really stand by the idea the forum isn't just a sad little clubhouse of wikidouche friends, virtually all of whom are pretty damn devoted to Wikipedia, if not in whole, then in significant part.

Since Zoloft wants to protect these snivelling little cowards in their safe space, I invite them over here, to neutral ground, to see what it would have really been like for them, had I been truly allowed to say what I think of their ill-thought out views and analyses.

Well put. And if you said this on WO, Zoloft would probably kick you out, lying about it all the while.

Post Reply