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

Re: The reason CrowsNest got banned

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:13 pm

:lol:

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 57#p216757

I'm kind of missing CrowsNest. Is it possible to welcome him back, but put his posts on moderation (up for approval by a moderator before going live). I realize that could be a burden for the moderator team, but I'd be interested in his take on how this one played out.
My take on it is that the difference between that RM and the one for Sarah Jane Brown is blindingly obvious, namely compelling evidence that use of the natural disambiguation was justifiable. No such case was made (nor could be made) for "Sarah Jane Brown".

I think it is pretty obvious this is how any intelligent and policy knowledgeable editor like Born2Cycle would see the issue, so any Administrator who supports the ostracization of such people for supposedly causing disruption by being unashamably right, is actively harming Wikipedia.

If anyone needs to be put on moderation over at Wikipediocracy, shouldn't it be the dickheads who can't fathom basic shit like that? If their so called mission is to be believed, Wikipediocracy is meant to be a venue for serious, informed, insightful debate, not a pre-school to teach Wikipedians of nearly seven years experience stuff they really should already know before they have the front to ask the community for their trust in their competency.

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 15, 2018 7:33 pm

They are so funny. A wikipedia critical site what blocks critics because they are to critical! I told you before, it's a place for overstressed Wikipedians to grumble a bit and to recover, so they are fit for Wikipedia again. Wikipediocrazy is one big joke and a extension of the Village pump, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia criticism.

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 » Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:28 pm

Jake wrote:Well... to be fair, I don't think he's saying everyone else is the problem, he's saying that we're too inclusive of people who are essentially pro-Wikipedia (at least in his estimation) and that those are the people who (naturally) complain about him. That's not entirely true, of course, but I can sort of see how he might perceive it that way - most of the really anti-Wikipedia people who complain about him (simply for being abrasive/divisive) aren't doing it where he can see it, because presumably they don't want to be seen complaining about someone whom they fundamentally agree with (at least as far as non-personal issues are concerned).
I got no problem with you having Wikipedians or Wikipedia sympathisers on your boards, it's valuable to have their views, even to have debates with them. I just have a problem with you protecting them when the debates inevitably show them to be wrong, or misguided, or just plain deaf. It's a discussion forum, not a safe space for people who want the right to speak, without the obligation to listen and if germane, reply.

The nominal purpose of that board is to shine a light on Wikipedia's faults, so pretending like a Wikipedian posting there but refusing to answer a legitimate question, or worse, giving obviously bullshit answers, is somehow enough to fulfill your mission, is just fucking dumb. But I played by your rules, I didn't let it get under my skin, I didn't respond how normal people would respond when subjected to that level of general idiocy and disrespect, and somehow you still ended up fucking me over. What the fuck?

Did I ever complain when Wikipedian after Wikipedian decided to repeatedly grandstand about how they were ignoring me? No, because I don't give a shit. Indeed I laughed at the idea they think following my every move and whining like little bitches is ignoring me, because I'm normal. But I never once purposely interacted with a single one of those snowflakes once they made their grand announcement. Which of course only aggravated them, because that is the exact opposite of what they want.

Apparently you did though, because as was seen, grandstanding and whining wasn't enough for them, they had to threaten you and pressure you into forcing me out. Why do you think that was? Could it be for the very reason that the anti-Wikipedia people fundamentally agree with what I say? Did you ever factor that in, when Wikipediot after Wikipediot lined up to say I talk shit, that I know nothing about nothing, as some kind of reply to what I said on your board?

You simply can't have a policy of having Wikipedians on your board, without also having a policy of how to handle their precious snowflakery. You're not stupid, you know their games, you know how they deal with disagreement and being challenged, you see it all the time on Wikipedia, and it's fucked up. The odd clarifying comment here and there to set them straight is not enough - when they stop listening to you, when they carry on trying to take me for a fool, you need to step up and have the balls to do something about it. Or recognise that if you're not going to, you can at least let me describe their behaviour for what it is, without being called hostile or being patronised by you or your underling.

As for whoever it is who is criticising me in private, they need to appreciate that I'm not a snowflake Wikipedian, or a snowflake critic for that matter. I can handle being criticised in public, and I'll either agree or disagree, and if the latter, with full reasoning. I can follow rules, I can fit in with whatever culture you lay down, assuming you make it worthwhile to be actually posting there. What I won't do is accept being told insulting people is not OK, and then you lot sitting on your asses when your members insult me.

I'm very easy to get along with. Don't take me for a fool, and you'll have no trouble. I don't know how many times I have to say it. Whatever else you might say or do, is unlikely to annoy me, because I'm a big boy, I can stand up for myself, and I'm always careful not to say things I can't defend, or at least clarify when I'm not certain.

If Zoloft's emails are anything to go by, there's little to no case to be made that I was ever all that abrasive/divisive, and anything I did do in that regard, was really not out of the ordinary for your site. The ban is all about what bans on Wikipedia are about - prioritising the health of the social club over the accuracy of the information or quality of debate.

At the end of the day, you do whatever you want to do, it's your site. But you of all people/groups really shouldn't be surprised if stupid acts, up to and including unjust bans, generates bad press for your site and its members elsewhere.

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 » Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:08 am

What Jake is telling is of course complete bull, they simple are not a critical site! It is a middle of the road site were Wikipedians can complain. I really don't understand what he want. Kohs spend years to prove Wikipedia and WMF is complete rotten, and now they make a u turn and poor Wikipedians as Anroth who was defending a SanFanBan and was quoting parts of the "solutions" of arbcom-NL must be protected.
Because otherwise his poor Wikipedian soul is hurt. Jake, get honest and admit wikipediocracy is a extension of the Village Pump where overstressed wikipedians can recover. And Crowsnest will desturbe that proces. That is honest, and the rest you are saying is complete bull, because there is not something as a consensus in this matter! It is just like being pregnant, you are pregnant or you are not. You are a critical site or you are not. It is as simple as that.

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 Apr 10, 2018 2:56 am

Jesus.
Well, he does have a point, in that many of us were indeed saddened by much of the personal invective he used here against those who he deemed insufficiently anti-Wikipedian. Maybe not in quite the way he thinks, but definitely saddened. Do people who defend "moderately abusive" (whatever that means) Wikipedian behavior deserve to be insulted in a public forum? Of course! Nobody is disputing that, but if we keep doing it, they'll just leave, and then who are we going to argue with? It's a can't-win situation.

This is what I've always been forced to conclude: The first order of business is to stay in business. We don't do that by making people sad all the time, no matter how much fun it is to accomplish on a case-by-case basis. I'm not saying we always have to be "civil," or that we're going to have an "NPA" policy. The point is not to become a place that people just don't want to visit because it bums them out all the time. Because that's when you end up out of business.
I don't even know what he's going on about here.

If he's trying to justify not upsetting the likes of Dennis Brown and other luminaries of the wiki Deep State by not expecting them to answer legitimate questions or even acknowledge their own actions, the results of that business model are in. He has failed to attract the attention of anyone who would be remotely interested in such a farce, which of course includes every single serious critic, indeed every critic of Wikipedia of any stripe who isn't still in a position where they need to either fear or curry favour of the likes of Dennis.

It certainly attracts Wikipedians who could simply say the same thing to Dennis on his own Wikipedia talk page and not bore everyone else with their bullshit, but I guess if they did that, Wikipediocracy loses out on some kind of carrier commission?

If he's trying to justify caving in to the empty threats of his last remaining regulars who seemed to have claimed that they would leave if the Big Bad Wolf wasn't removed, the results are in. He got played. They were never going to leave, they are, after all, the only ones who haven't left in the gradual exodus which Zoloft presided over under this same model, and their sadness was most certainly not due to invective.

The reason I bummed these people out, is because I know what I'm talking about, and they don't. For example, I know that when NewYorkBrad recently said that on his visits to Wikipediocracy he answers any questions put to him, it was a lie. Just like I knew when AndyTheGrump said no filter could be designed to do a better job than the one which confused a farm for a person, that was a lie. Just like I knew that when Ming tried to justify Wikipedia happily ignoring their own rules because it reflected "reality", it was only going to be because the victim was an alt-right website and fools armed with Google wouldn't know the difference anyway.

I always remember people who lie. I wouldn't be much of a critic if I didn't have that ability, no? And I will definitely always remember the people who seem to think lying isn't enough, that they feel so aggrieved by being caught out, so bummed out by this personal affront, that they feel the need to question my intelligence or my knowledge or my right to be in their presence at all. I'll always fucking remember those people.

So if your business model is to protect such people from the consequences of their actions, then yes, you better do all you can to keep me from your gates. And if subtly changing the story about why I was evicted, inventing invective where there arguably was none, or indeed none beyond what is considered normal, I guess that is your right as proprietor. Just don't whine when we update your business listings for you. It isn't nice to give the public a false impression of what your business is all about.

On the subject of successful business models, if anyone has ever seen me run away from a legitimate query, or not give a Wikipedian a fair chance to justify their views, or in any way take liberties with a proprietor's rules and regulations, kindly let the world know in your nearest available business directory.

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 Apr 10, 2018 9:00 am

It was late when I read that, and I am always bothered by my poor English but I was really shocked when I read that posting. What for the Fuck is your business model, Jack?Creating a safe place where Anroth can tell over and over his arbcom shit story's how fantastic arbcom is functioning? And where Ming can tell how easy your live on Wikipedia is if you keep your mouth shut and accept all the corruption and wiki-shit?

I am afraid mister Jake is complete, and when I say complete missing the point where it's all about. Because he wants a middle of road discussion about a complete rotten system, and to moderate and mute criticism of that same rotting system. Very strange, because in that way he is defending it.

But I think I know the answer and mister Jake is not honest about his motives. Wikipediocrazy is a anti-WMF and anti-Jimmy site, but it is not a anti-Wikipedia site! And you and I are not criticise only WMF and Jimmy, but also Wikipedia!
And that is where it's all about ,and Jake is not open about his real motive and business model, and is telling because of that a lot of horse shit in that topic.

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 Apr 10, 2018 12:04 pm

Don't worry Graf, the post doesn't make much sense in English either.

He explains it more clearly here....
some sort of extreme anti-Wikipedia orthodoxy, which would be completely justifiable in an ideological sense, but (as I stated earlier) would probably result in the site becoming first a shit-fling, then an echo chamber, then a ghost town
He's basically admitting he is happy to sacrifice the idea his site exists to criticise Wikipedia, expose their truth, in exchange for ensuring people want to post.

He's steadfastly refusing to admit a few obvious issues. The site currently is an echo-chamber, the predominant vibe being Wikipedia is largely OK, a net benefit to society which just needs a few tweaks here and there, and the fault for all that ails it largely rests with the WMF and/or the evil Administrator cabal. And it is already the case that people who diverge from this orthodoxy both have shit flung at them and are subject to Wikipedian style tactics to evade/avoid/attack. Which is unsurprising, since the only people who really subscribe to this orthodoxy, are Wikipediots themselves.

This is the reason serious critics who have different ideas or are harder in their views have all left. You frankly can't have any kind of serious discussion with people who are so delusional and so precious. They will always perceive attempts to discuss, especially if it is to disagree, as trolling or insults. You can't discuss anything at all with people who, when given the choice by the management to simply not respond if doing so makes them look silly or worse, choose not to respond.

He seems to think what he already has on his site is actual discussion, not a hegemony, or an often quite sad parody of what passes for debate or analysis in wikiland. The sad fact is, he's not dumb, there's been many times he has admitted himself what goes on there, the low rent tactics of his favoured posters. For some reason, he seems to believe people like me are begging to be ignored, insulted, misrepresented and generally taken for fools, as the price of entry.

This hemegony is also why Zoloft will never get his wish and see any of his mates from Wikimania dropping by for cosy fireside chats. Those people are not interested because they see the site as being just for disgruntled Wikipedians with questionable views who are otherwise still quite happily seeing themselves as part of the 'movement', even if experiencing the temporary inconvenience of a block. They are safely ignored outside the wiki by the True Believers, just as they are safely ignored inside.

He's also forgetting the most pertinent point - I never actually flung shit at anyone, I abided by their rules as best I could, despite this being very difficult for any normal person to do. He seems to forget, being a Wikipedian, having their mindset of what is right and acceptable, is not normal. Any time I can think of where I supposedly behaved badly, were eclipsed, regularly, by the behaviour of those he apparently values more.

I have absolutely no problem being asked to do whatever is necessary to ensure a wide range of opinions are seen as welcome on a discussion site. That is what debate is. As long as it actually results in discussion, and not in people like me people with talent and skills and knowledge, being taken for a fools.

Jake just needs to just sit down and think. Why are the people he apparently values more than me, actually visiting his site? Is it really to discuss or debate? Are they, as a collective, really fulfilling their mission? Or is their mission now just to look moderately active, and screw the 'why are we here' question?

Black Kite is a perfect example, an absolutely perfect example. That guy is a dick's dick, he has abused his position to deceive the entire Wikipedia community multiple times, all to protect one of the worst ever violators of Wikipedia policy. All simply because Black Kite personally didn't think they should have ever faced any sanction, let alone his multiple sanctions, blocks, bans and arbcom cases. All this can be proven, it's all on record, it's all incontrovertible.

Black Kite is a classic example of the corruption at the heart of Wikipedia. That prick is never ever going to admit what he has done, and he has plenty of supporters given what he did, because many Wikipediots, especially those who find the current hemegony of Wikipediocracy attractive, lack morals and courage.

All Black Kite is actually interested in doing on their site is insulting those who expose him, and posting about what he wants to post about. Which is typically just low value self-serving crap. Opinion masquerading as analysis/fact. All of which he is allowed to do with impunity. The same goes for Dennis Brown.

Jake needs to think hard, what does tolerating that make him look like? Does that make him look like someone who wants a high quality discussion on a platform independent of Wikipedia. Or does that just make him look like he condones this behaviour? That he actually quite admires some of scummiest scum of Wikipedia, and isn't interested in holding them to account at all.

There is a massive difference between ensuring Wikipedians like Black Kite and Dennis Brown feel like they are welcome to post, on the off-chance there might be a benefit, and literally laying out a welcome mat and holding the other residents down while they shit down their neck.

Jake is in danger of painting himself as an apologist here. He needs to realise that if your purpose in life is exposure and criticism, sometimes its better to be right, than liked. Sometimes its better to be a little visited forum with high quality content, than a well frequented open sewer that merely apes what it supposedly exists to expose.

Wikipedia criticism is a niche activity. There are not many people who can do it well, it simply requires too much knowledge and reading to be able to produce stuff the Wikipediots can't easily discredit.

Ming's stuff is a classic example of the sort of easily shredded lightweight shite that gets posted by people who know little but have a high opinion of themselves and their knowledge/abilities. Jake is enabling these people. It is not a good look, since it is obvious he certainly knows enough to see these shit posts for what they are. This is not to say having little knowledge is bad, but those who lack knowledge, need to be receptive to that fact and be willing to learn.

User avatar
Strelnikov
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 395 times
Been thanked: 251 times

Re: The reason CrowsNest got banned

Post by Strelnikov » Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:47 am

CrowsNest wrote:Don't worry Graf, the post doesn't make much sense in English either.

He explains it more clearly here....
some sort of extreme anti-Wikipedia orthodoxy, which would be completely justifiable in an ideological sense, but (as I stated earlier) would probably result in the site becoming first a shit-fling, then an echo chamber, then a ghost town
He's basically admitting he is happy to sacrifice the idea his site exists to criticise Wikipedia, expose their truth, in exchange for ensuring people want to post.

He's steadfastly refusing to admit a few obvious issues. The site currently is an echo-chamber, the predominant vibe being Wikipedia is largely OK, a net benefit to society which just needs a few tweaks here and there, and the fault for all that ails it largely rests with the WMF and/or the evil Administrator cabal. And it is already the case that people who diverge from this orthodoxy both have shit flung at them and are subject to Wikipedian style tactics to evade/avoid/attack. Which is unsurprising, since the only people who really subscribe to this orthodoxy, are Wikipediots themselves.

This is the reason serious critics who have different ideas or are harder in their views have all left. You frankly can't have any kind of serious discussion with people who are so delusional and so precious. They will always perceive attempts to discuss, especially if it is to disagree, as trolling or insults. You can't discuss anything at all with people who, when given the choice by the management to simply not respond if doing so makes them look silly or worse, choose not to respond.

He seems to think what he already has on his site is actual discussion, not a hegemony, or an often quite sad parody of what passes for debate or analysis in wikiland. The sad fact is, he's not dumb, there's been many times he has admitted himself what goes on there, the low rent tactics of his favoured posters. For some reason, he seems to believe people like me are begging to be ignored, insulted, misrepresented and generally taken for fools, as the price of entry.

This hemegony is also why Zoloft will never get his wish and see any of his mates from Wikimania dropping by for cosy fireside chats. Those people are not interested because they see the site as being just for disgruntled Wikipedians with questionable views who are otherwise still quite happily seeing themselves as part of the 'movement', even if experiencing the temporary inconvenience of a block. They are safely ignored outside the wiki by the True Believers, just as they are safely ignored inside.

He's also forgetting the most pertinent point - I never actually flung shit at anyone, I abided by their rules as best I could, despite this being very difficult for any normal person to do. He seems to forget, being a Wikipedian, having their mindset of what is right and acceptable, is not normal. Any time I can think of where I supposedly behaved badly, were eclipsed, regularly, by the behaviour of those he apparently values more.

I have absolutely no problem being asked to do whatever is necessary to ensure a wide range of opinions are seen as welcome on a discussion site. That is what debate is. As long as it actually results in discussion, and not in people like me people with talent and skills and knowledge, being taken for a fools.

Jake just needs to just sit down and think. Why are the people he apparently values more than me, actually visiting his site? Is it really to discuss or debate? Are they, as a collective, really fulfilling their mission? Or is their mission now just to look moderately active, and screw the 'why are we here' question?

Black Kite is a perfect example, an absolutely perfect example. That guy is a dick's dick, he has abused his position to deceive the entire Wikipedia community multiple times, all to protect one of the worst ever violators of Wikipedia policy. All simply because Black Kite personally didn't think they should have ever faced any sanction, let alone his multiple sanctions, blocks, bans and arbcom cases. All this can be proven, it's all on record, it's all incontrovertible.

Black Kite is a classic example of the corruption at the heart of Wikipedia. That prick is never ever going to admit what he has done, and he has plenty of supporters given what he did, because many Wikipediots, especially those who find the current hemegony of Wikipediocracy attractive, lack morals and courage.

All Black Kite is actually interested in doing on their site is insulting those who expose him, and posting about what he wants to post about. Which is typically just low value self-serving crap. Opinion masquerading as analysis/fact. All of which he is allowed to do with impunity. The same goes for Dennis Brown.

Jake needs to think hard, what does tolerating that make him look like? Does that make him look like someone who wants a high quality discussion on a platform independent of Wikipedia. Or does that just make him look like he condones this behaviour? That he actually quite admires some of scummiest scum of Wikipedia, and isn't interested in holding them to account at all.

There is a massive difference between ensuring Wikipedians like Black Kite and Dennis Brown feel like they are welcome to post, on the off-chance there might be a benefit, and literally laying out a welcome mat and holding the other residents down while they shit down their neck.

Jake is in danger of painting himself as an apologist here. He needs to realise that if your purpose in life is exposure and criticism, sometimes its better to be right, than liked. Sometimes its better to be a little visited forum with high quality content, than a well frequented open sewer that merely apes what it supposedly exists to expose.

Wikipedia criticism is a niche activity. There are not many people who can do it well, it simply requires too much knowledge and reading to be able to produce stuff the Wikipediots can't easily discredit.

Ming's stuff is a classic example of the sort of easily shredded lightweight shite that gets posted by people who know little but have a high opinion of themselves and their knowledge/abilities. Jake is enabling these people. It is not a good look, since it is obvious he certainly knows enough to see these shit posts for what they are. This is not to say having little knowledge is bad, but those who lack knowledge, need to be receptive to that fact and be willing to learn.


They don't tolerate outsiders, especially people like me who never were involved in Wikipedia, who came to WO-MB to talk about Reddit (which has a large spill-over of Wikipedians, but I didn't know that until later.) The people who have been there the longest were kicked out/chased off of Wikipedia, then hung out on Wikipedia Review, then moved to Wikipediocracy - it's like a Foreign Legion of Wikipedia. Which means they really aren't criticizing WP; it's like ex-Scientologists still doing auditing through the "Free Zone"/Independent Scientology grouplets - just getting a hit to keep an addiction going. And in WO-MB's case, it meant keeping up some of the mentality of the Guerilla Skeptics (case in point: never talk about UFOs*, except in a derogatory manner), and keeping the Wikigossip going for days. A lot of the stuff that was factual and had links was absorbed into the book wiki, but the rest was dross.


* Especially never talk about skeptic hero Philip Klass and his 1980 poison pen letter about Stanton Friedman to A.G. McNamara at the Canadian National Research Council's Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, nor how he tried to stop a University of Nebraska "unexplained phenomena" conference in 1983 by claiming the conference somehow gave support to the worldwide Communist movement (!), nor his penchant for playing lawyerly games in dealing with witnesses, and UFO proponents.

(Klass, 1919–2005, wrote for Aviation Week and Space Technology, and like Issac Asimov was an early member of CSICOP. He was to UFOs what James Randi was/is to psychics/telekenetic ability claimants - a harsh and unremitting critic. In his way, Klass kept the Donald Menzel school of "all true believers are liars, all witnesses are mistaken, every case can be debunked, the phenomena is just high-altitude reflections" going for decades.)
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

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 » Sat Apr 14, 2018 12:34 am

Strelnikov wrote:* Especially never talk about skeptic hero Philip Klass and his 1980 poison pen letter about Stanton Friedman to A.G. McNamara at the Canadian National Research Council's Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, nor how he tried to stop a University of Nebraska "unexplained phenomena" conference in 1983 by claiming the conference somehow gave support to the worldwide Communist movement (!), nor his penchant for playing lawyerly games in dealing with witnesses, and UFO proponents.

(Klass, 1919–2005, wrote for Aviation Week and Space Technology, and like Issac Asimov was an early member of CSICOP. He was to UFOs what James Randi was/is to psychics/telekenetic ability claimants - a harsh and unremitting critic. In his way, Klass kept the Donald Menzel school of "all true believers are liars, all witnesses are mistaken, every case can be debunked, the phenomena is just high-altitude reflections" going for decades.)

The Wikimedia "movement" operates in a more-or-less identical manner.

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 » Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:15 pm

:lol:
Tarantino wrote:Let's not talk about him since he can't respond.
I wasn't allowed to respond when you charged me with being too hostile for your Safe Space, so don't be lying to your foolish subjects by pretending that you have these sort of principles now.....

And for those of your subjects wanting to send people over here to ask me, please note my explanation has been posted here in this public forum for a while now. Everyone should be curious as to why the staff members of Wikipediocracy (all two! of them at last count), and indeed the regular posters mentioned, have thus far studiously avoided coming here to address it's points.

Post Reply