Page 1 of 6


Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:10 pm
by CrowsNest ... 31#p217231

This ridiculous post seems to be Ming's best attempt to goad us into gracing him with his own personal thread. So let's put him out of his misery and dive right in.....
Ming wrote:Wikipediocracy has become infected with boring. Less of an infection, more of a cancer I'd say. As in it hasn't come from without, but from within, as a slow, almost unnoticed, mutation.

Ming looks back at the WR link, and pokes around there, and it's striking to Ming how much more, well, intelligent discussion seemed to be back then, Ming really needs to drop this libtard schtick - the rise of the alt-right hasn't somehow dumbed down the rest of society, they're as intelligent as they were before, so something else must be to blame for this perception, and I stress it likely is just a perception, not a reality ignoring Jon Aubrey's tiresome rambling crap (which seems to be one of the things that killed it: at any rate, he seems to have kept on yammering long after anyone else felt moved to respond). This is the first time I have ever seen anyone claim Awbrey was the reason for WR's decline, much less demise. Perhaps Ming isn't so good at divining the reasons for a forum's failure as he wants people to think? I have no knowledge of Awbrey, but would I be surprised to learn he and Ming were past combatants on Wikipedia? Sad if he's held a grudge all that time.

We've had one Aubrey-like belaborer here This is me, right?, and a whole run of people complaining about how they were Done Wrong, It's a Wikipedia criticism forum you ignorant piece of shit, what kind of arrogant fuck takes the stance that the victims of Wikipedia are to be treated as the enemy? Ming doesn't seem to have the first idea that one way to reinvigorate Wikipediocracy would be to actually turn all those people from complainers into actual critics. Lord knows I tried my best in that regard, but did he help? Did he fuck. His idea of helping people, can be seen in his advice to Brille Lyle as she recently complained in this thread - ... =16&t=9158 - despite being the first responder, his contribution amounted to nothing but an attempt to rationalise her treatment and defend her tormentors. That entire thread is noteworthy in showing the stark contrast between the approach of people who post here, and those who stay in the safe space of Wikipediocracy. All that forum does for people like Brille, is keep them hooked, keep them battling the cultists, and offer so called advice that is only ever going to compound her misery, as she continues to try to interact with Wikipedia and the Wikipedians as if it or they are remotely normal. We need an entirely new term for these people - pseudo-critics isn't nearly enough to convey their real capacity for compounding people's suffering and betraying their supposed cause. How about Quisling's? Honestly, when the fuck did Wikipediocracy become an unofficial help forum? and yet another person who has to say something about everything even though it typically isn't something particularly cogent. Obviously a jibe at Kumioko, currently still an active member of that forum. The coward isn't brave enough to mention him by name, not that even if he did, the staff would take any action to enforce their desired environment. Mustn't do anything to upset the clique or unduly stress the people Zoloft respects by holding them to any kind of standard. And if Ming genuinely feels this way, Ming needs to explain why he has such a dim view of my abilities or intelligence. If he had done his research, and that's never a given with this lazy fuck, he'd have seen I have made the same observations before, both in the venues criticising Wikipediocracy, and indeed there. Unlike Ming though, I wasn't a coward about it, I addressed him directly. That the Wikipediocracy staff took no notice, yet banned me, doesn't seem to have impacted Ming's assessments. Poetlister has tried Really? When? If and when he posts, it's usually just a pointer to something with a brief but typically entirely misleading explanation, and so it rarely measures up to the competition - timely example - ... f=8&t=9181 , and Ming has tried We noticed. God loves a trier. His theory of unassailable articles turned out to be fake news. Finding it curious that Wikipedia doesn't allow BLP subjects to be sources for their own articles, is a mark of this guy's epic capacity for slow learning - ... f=8&t=9180 - haven't looked into it further, so don't be surprised if even this example turns out to be fake news. This is typical of his so called criticism. , and people simply aren't that interested in anything Well, do the math. If supposedly only you and Poetlister are trying to make Wikipediocracy interesting....... except to go on about how Fram is such a bad person Really? This probably accounts for 1% of the text posted in the forum in the last month, if that , which is true, I sense a butt coming along.... but Bingo! Ming is a Wikipediot apologist, hands up who is surprised at this shocking revelation? people have run-ins with Fram almost without exception because they write crap and won't back down from doing that. Without exception? This sounds like and indeed smells like bullshit. Fram's two most recent targets were Martinevans for posting links to copyrighted YouTube vids, and Blofeld for ancient copyright violations. In both cases, it is inarguable that it was Fram who was overplaying his hand, and Fram who wouldn't back down. What kind of fucking lazy prick, doesn't admit that? This prick. So desperate is he to construct this epic whinge of a post, he makes the same mistakes he always does, assuming other people are thick.

Going on about people being WMF supporters is a very bad sign, Only in the sense that Wikipediocracy tolerates posters like Ming subtly and casually distorting reality. What Kumioko was on about (and it is admittedly hard to parse, but who is to blame for that being a feature of the forum? Not I.) is that the Wikipediocracy forum has become overly biased toward sympathising with the WMF rather than those they ban. This isn't wholeheartedly supporting the WMF, but it is tacit endorsement when being asked to choose between the mother ship and the enemy aliens. Kumioko argues that this is because it has become difficult to distinguish the posters of Wikipediocracy and Wikipedians in general, and this is borne out by the obvious fact most Wikipedians are indeed mithering critics of the WMF, but incredibly reluctant to find common cause with those they deem unpersoned. especially since it doesn't seem to Ming that anyone here is actually in that camp. Ming does so love to not notice things only he has said his opponents said exist. What Ming sees is that the quality of discourse has taken a severe decline, partly, perhaps, because a bunch of people gave up and quit. We all know the history, who has left and when. Again, he takes us for fools. The only way this is objectively true, is if the decline is measured over several years, surely well beyond the timeframe Ming is seeking to reference. All of which time, Ming and Poetlister, and all the other part time pseudo critics who are pretty soft on Wikipedia aa a concept and Wikipedians and trend more to blaming the WMF/Jimmy for everything, have been posters there, protected and coddled by Uncle Zoloft. Funny that.....I'll tell you who does appear to have left very recently - some of the vociferous members of the cowardly little group of fucks who called for my head. It is almost as if they weren't members of Wikipediocracy because they were interested in Ming and Poetlister's material. They were there of course, because wherever I am, die hard Wikipediots and their apologists come to decry me. Not the usual residents of the sleepy safe space that is Wikipediocracy of the last few years, who they see as no threat whatsoever. If only Ming would find the backbone needed to come here and argue his case.
In this one post, Ming reveals what he is all about - a throughly shit critic who can't even acknowledge basic and obvious facts, someone who is utterly self absorbed, totally addicted to the libtard narrative which has become a feature of Zoloft's not so independent forum, someone who is only really interested in attacking people from behind the safety of his protected little bubble, and even then not being above taking cowardly swipes at those he doesn't want Zoloft to force him to cohabit with. A snivelling little snowflake if ever there was one.

If he has a single blog post in his locker, let alone one other critics couldn't pick apart easily or that the Wikipediots would be so frightened of for its factual accuracy and cutting intent, they'd actually decry it, I'd be amazed. The guy doesn't know much, doesn't think much, and doesn't care about anyone else's plight but his own. A true poster boy for the sort of person who is really behind the gradual decline and pacification of Wikipediocracy, after an admittedly promising start.

Re: Ming

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:58 pm
by Graaf Statler
Yeh, I just read the topic, or better the half of it because it's as normal a complete uninteresting Wikipediocrazy topic. (Why should I waste my time to listen to persons like Ming?) Of course Kum is complete right, WPO has nothing, and when I say nothing to do with a critical forum, It's the dependance of Wikipedia-En and WMF lovers.

That is fine for me, not any problem. I am very, very happy with Guido's Wikisage and I don't care about WP-En, so I don't care. But why for the hell is Jake ignoring this fact? It should be much more fair if he said, yes, we created for overstressed Wikipedians a save place were they can criticize wikipedia critics. Because that is what it is, has nothing to do with Kohs or anything else, it is just a fact. Read there from time to time, and you know exacte what Wikipediocrazy is, it is as simple as that.

Re: Ming

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:21 pm
by ericbarbour
CrowsNest wrote:

This ridiculous post seems to be Ming's best attempt to goad us into gracing him with his own personal thread. So let's put him out of his misery and dive right in.....

Wikipedia is boring because it's infected with Ming and his cohort....he was never a WO poster of any real value. Prob. a sockpuppet of a WP insider (as usual).

Re: Ming

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 2:01 am
by CrowsNest
For all his third person schtick and egotism, he sure does give off a vanilla Wikipediot vibe. Hard to think of a single position he has that would make him remotely stand out against that beige backdrop of turd-juice they call a community. Just another snowflake coward who can give it, but can't take it. Not surprised at all to see him bragging he is on "good terms" with Zoloft, who in return slaps down Guido for stupidly assuming that a Wikipediocracy poster who makes arguments from authority derived from their Wikipedia experience to denounce the validity of other's experience, would be expected to say what their Wikipedia user name actually is. Zoloft has gone from 'don't call Wikipediots liars, just show how they lie', to 'Wikipediots can lie here, and you're just gonna have to accept it because we're a snowflake friendly safe space where every child's experience is equally valid, and entirely unquestionable'.

Re: Ming

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:18 am
by CrowsNest
That wall of green text, though... Ming would almost be interested in laughing at what stupid things Krähennest was emitting were it not for that.
Hey Ming. Put your cowardice aside and come here, so you can explain my stupidity in an environment where you aren't going to be treated like a special little flower whose sad act is endearing.......or you can stay there in silent admission that I nailed it.

Re: Ming

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:38 pm
by CrowsNest
....and now he's demanding that Ming should volunteer to be harangued. Oh brother.
What a precious little fuck you really are. As always, it's hard to reconcile your avatar with your snowflake tendencies. Is it meant to be ironic? A commentary on the sort of person who actually flourishes in Wikiland?

Perhaps the way we are meant to read a comment like this.....
Look, Ming is not the one here who is trying to argue Ming's way back into WP. Ming has a perfectly good account with no blocks. That's because (a) Ming mostly complies with the rules, (b) Ming has been careful about picking fights, and (c) Ming knows when to quit. Ming is on good terms with the management here, in spite of a lot of differences of opinion. that you never actually pick any fights at all, at least not ones over which you know the 'management' won't ultimately protect you if you embarass yourself. Do you restrict your arguments to picking on the unpopular kids? Do you just troll, while bizarrely claiming to be a victim of trolling. Is that your deal? Are you even an actual critic of Wikipedia?

I won't insult Jake by insinuating he is shallow enough to side with you in his admin actions simply because you share some opinions, but it does rather look that way, given there's been no real reason given for my block, other than upsetting precious little fucks like you.

Let's be clear, I'm making no demands, not of you anyway. I am merely illustrating that you are a coward who can give it but not take it, someone who uses the system to protect themselves from scrutiny and indeed reality, while attacking others from within its safe little space. A perfect example of the sort of person who flourishes on Wikipedia, and it seems, Wikipediocracy.

If you're not happy with what I write about you here, and you lack the guts to challenge it here, then maybe Uncle Zoloft can work out some arrangement where we can discuss it in his Safe Space? Maybe then we'll see if I actually ever did anything that violated their rules.......

If not, well, if he wants that forum to be a platform for your sort of entitled whining, and if he wants it to go unchallenged and will ignore his own rules to achieve that level of snowflake protection, so be it. That is exactly what I am trying to highlight he is all about.

In the meantime, I suggest you find something interesting and persuasive to write about Wikipedia, hopefully of a critical nature. If you keep churning out shit, I'm gonna keep critiquing it here. So if that upsets you, don't look.

I don't write it to effect change in you, although it doing so would be a refreshing change. I'm hoping to convince others you're not a guy worthy of respect, let alone defending. On a serious critic's site, you'd be a pariah (or one of the reasons they all left, as I've speculated, probably correctly). Sorry if that makes you feel targeted or harassed, I'm just that sort of guy. Hateful. Vengeful. Not nice admittedly, but way better than your defining character traits. And certainly more deserving of your avatar.

After all, I did warn you. Didn't I fucking warn you? You ignored it. Take your medicine.

Re: Ming

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:12 am
by CrowsNest
Apparently there's a 9/11 conspiracy theory which alleges Dick Cheney ordered fighter jets to shoot down United Flight 93. It just got a new airing in a way that involved Wikipedia..... ... edia-lies/

And so naturally, Poetlister caught it in his weekly news scrape..... ... f=6&t=9241

As with most conspiracy theories, it offers a mix of truth and lies. The video in that story does show Cheney admitting that, having already learned of the Twin Towers and Pentagon impacts, he had given the order to shoot down a hijacked plane heading for Washington (or if we're being really generous, he replied in the abstract about giving the general order having perhaps not noticed the interviewer had mentioned a specific plane).

Supporting the idea this was a specific order to shoot down a specific plane, is this other CNN piece.... ... ng.cheney/

What they of course don't show, is Cheney admitting he ordered the shoot down of Flight 93 specifically, much less if it actually happened. Ergo, the guy's edit to push the theory was rightfully rejected by Wikipedia, albeit with the usual unhelpful and arrogant canned explanation.

Ming's reaction to all this being highlighted on Wikipediocracy, is to totally side with Wikipedia, to show blind support for the practice of the guerrilla skeptics and their ilk basically WP:OWNing articles. He further laments that Wikipedia criticism sites often lack credibility because the principle of the "enemy of my enemy" let's "these people" in. I sadly don't get a mention, but he takes a cheap shot at TDA.

If I wasn't banned from there, and if he wasn't too chicken shit to come here and defend himself, here's what I would have pointed out......

-You do not have to reflexively side with conspiracy theorists in order to unpack the meritous aspects of their complaints (the Wikipedia article would clearly benefit from this information, especially given its current content regarding fighter planes). Serious critics have that capability, in full cognisence that there are rarely occasions where it is a case of saint vs. sinner.

-Viewing this sort of dispute as an issue between good and evil is exactly what discredits your claim to be a serious critic (that and the fact your own critical output is frankly garbage, which only survives because Jake has to ban people who point out its obvious laws). It is hard to say what would be worse actually, whether this was an act of lazy assumption, or one of prejudice borne of a Wikipedian like approach to criticism. The doctrine of Clean Hands is a core part of Wikipedia Dogma just as much as Death to Woo is, just one of the many reasons their system of governance has no legitimacy. As any serious critic understands.

-The only person being discredited when they freely use Wikipediocracy to try to tie critics like TDA into the same group as 9/11 conspiracy theorists without just cause, is you (and Wikipediocracy, for protecting and enabling you).

-You've got a damn cheek even speaking as if you are above falling into an "enemy of my enemy" mindset. Unless you have reflected on your idiotic claims about me being an alt-right stooge, you patently are that guy. Dumb as dumb can be.

-As thankfully at least one poster there noted, it is also saying dumb shit like "Ming notices that he doesn't give enough info to identify an edit.", when the edit & revert the guy was talking about was the second to last edits made to the page, which makes you look at best just a lazy fool, and worst like a fucking retard, in the eyes of other serious critics. ... =837395975

-In a delicious irony given your slur against TDA, what does actually make you look more like a 9/11 conspiracy nut than a serious Wikipedia critic, is your attitude that if you simply believe something to be true, thanks to your simplistic ideology and/or your inability to understand what is being said, then that is basically it as far as you are concerned - end of argument. If you see no prospect of persuading the other side to your view, then you will just take your ball home, or worse, try to get the headmistress to remove the mean person calling your posts into question. When put under any kind of pressure, you have literally no interest in discussion, much less any recognition that you could simply be wrong and are thus open to persuasion. You treat Wikipediocracy not as a forum, but a platform. That is in stark contrast to TDA, but in complete synchronicity with the proponents of Woo and their chosen Safe Spaces. The Woo in your case, being the virtues of Wikipedia and the Wikipedians.

Ming, for being manifestly too scared to even face these criticisms even though you claim you have bested me before, you look like the sort of coward who is indeed much more at home being a part of the Wikipedia article owning squad, if not one of their leading lights, rather than criticising them. There is certainly a lot of Guy Chapmanesque type knobbery about you.

Is it any wonder that you revel in the Safe Space afforded you by Wikipediocracy, from whose members you happily hide your Wikipedia identity......

What a coward. What a dunce. What an arrogant charlatan. What a liability.

A Quisling in their midst, and they can't (or don't want to) see it.

Re: Ming

Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:39 pm
by CrowsNest
Is this Ming talking about himself perhaps?
The article is all pure hype anyway, as John Pack Lambert points out. ... ssa_Carson ... =16&t=9450

Certainly it appears to be only Ming of Wikipediocracy and JPL of Wikipedia who are obsessing over the fact that the only reason this Wikipedia article might exist is because her father is using his daughter to run a scam (presumably through soliciting donations to the Blueberry Foundation).

For those confused, and that would be understandable given the shit way Ming posts, the website, listed as this girl's official website on Wikipedia, is evidently run by her dad to promote his daughter. The greyed out "Press Kit" link rather undermines Ming's assessment of it being a "slick publicity site", but hey, eyesight was never his strong point.

One fly in the ointment of the Ming advanced theory that the Wikipedia article is part of the promotional effort/scam, is that the first version of the article was, according to Kupdung, created by a different scammer to extort the family. Also according to Kupdung, the second version was created by Arbitrator KrakatoaKatie as an act of kindness/generosity for their distress.

So, either this scam is really really complex, a serious case of double bluff or maybe even insider corruption, or Ming has, and this really is the most likely explanation, just got it wrong.

As is normal, Ming has completely missed the most interesting part of this whole mess. In Kupdung's view, the piece is "clearly a worthy and notable Wikipedia article". He is so convinced of it, he has said "I'll lay my admin bit on the line in support.", and most bizarrely, this is because he seems to think keep the article is the best way to ensure defamatory content stays out of it. That exact risk, as espoused by WP:BLP, is of course the reason why most people are arguing it should be deleted.

So, what we could have here, is a case of Ming of Wikipediocracy, who perhaps ordinarily edits Wikipedia as John Pack Lambert, being so convinced this article is part of a scam, that he created a Wikipedia sock to put it up for deletion (the sock being the only other person to be concerned about her dad, albeit expressed there only as financing/promoting), then advertised the issue on Wikipediocracy, after which two events, he can then safely return to Wikipedia as "John Pack Lambert" to innocently weigh in with no less than six (to date) comments advancing the case for deletion.

Why would be so such a thing? Well, for one, who is going to stop him? For two, perhaps he was not so unaware of Kupdung's views as "Ming" makes out. Perhaps Ming knew special tactics would be required to win this battle. Perhaps he's now sweating at what Kupdung means by putting his admin status in the line.

If the intention was to expose Kudung, I'd salute it as a masterful piece of strategy. But Ming simply isn't that clever, nor is he that kind of Wikipedia critic. No, the most plausible explanation is that he really does think this girl is being used by her dad, and because he can't stand the idea of that (who would, but he seems most animated), he's going to use his meagre powers as a Wikipedian to affect that small part of it. Even though, if there is a scam, it may be that the Wikipedia article is not part of it, or at least not a part her father had any active part in creating.

Anyway, whatever the hell is going on, by sheer dumb luck, we may well yet see something come from this which has beneficial effects for the HTD cause. I'd settle for a smack-down between Kupdung and Ritchie, one or both being desysopped. Dream scenario is finding Kupdung got played into creating and then defending the article to further the alleged scam. Masive negative PR potential there. A middling outcome would be yet another massive internal policy division over how to balance coverage and BLP for minors, which would surely also draw in the anti-COI folks, which also might explode given the misogynistic overtones in this specific case.

Whatever happens, I'm just glad it solicited this comment.....
Carrite wrote:It's a really bad idea to have articles on little girl spacecampers
She's seventeen FFS. Still, that's Wikipediocracy for you.

Re: Ming

Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:18 pm
by AndrewForson
Is there any further information about the extortion racket alleged by Kupdung?

Re: Ming

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:35 am
by CrowsNest ... =16&t=9530

Ming the Mong strikes again.......
Hitchens's edit is idiotic; surely any professional author could have foreseen that. But the issue over Bell is very real. Of course, since he isn't protected by BLP, repeating accusations in WP is fair game, even obligatory.
As any professional anything would see (because being able to read and understand stuff usually means you can earn a living from it), Hitchin's edit was purposely 'wrong'....
Nothing I placed in the entry was untrue. It was designed to illustrate the absurdity of the entry as it wa, and the need or changes, as I made c;ear on the talk page, though then other contributor made no response.
He had got fed up of trying to get the Wikipediots to explain their objections to his earlier edits, which aimed to highlight the very issue Ming graciously concedes does exist, so he chucked some 'bad' edits in there, to tweak their noses and draw a neutral editor's attention to the dispute.

Alas, Hitchin, hampered by having a proper job, hasn't had the time in the trenches to be able to learn that the Wikipediots only react one way to such things, banishment of the nonconformist. It is unacceptable to them, having people around who are not afraid to point out the general absurdity of the Wikipedia model and using the sacrosanct article space to do so. Bad Peter! Naughty Peter! Doesn't he know you're supposed to file your complaints anywhere but article space, where they are safely ignored.....
I took a look at your last three edits. Wow, those were totally inappropriate and definitely fit "inserting opinion as fact and heavily editorialising in articles related to controversial figures", which is what you are blocked for. Now, I want to be clear, I'm not saying you are wrong. This is a subtle point; your editoralising may be correct. It may indeed be as worthwhile to file a complaint against George Bell with the local Tesco as with the police given the circumstances. The problem is, it's editoralising and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. So, I'm not saying you are wrong, only that your comments don't belong in the encyclopedia article. WP:NOR is on-point here. You are welcome to request another unblock request if, after reading WP:NOR, you believe you did not engage in that or if, after reading WP:NOR, you would change how you edit in the future. Yamla (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have looked at the history, and agree with Yamla; your edits were inappropriate in the extreme. Unless you can write in a neutral, encyclopedic tone (very different to the journalistic tone for which you are noted) your contributions are not going to be welcomed. You may also want to read WP:NOTTHEM, which explains why pointing out other users' perceived wrongdoings is a surefire way to remain blocked. Yunshui 雲水 15:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Pompous asses.

The reason Ming couldn't see this, just like these two pompous asses, is because he's not a Wikipedia critic. He's a die hard Wikipedian, like them. Hence why he unthinkingly, reflexively, sides with the Wikipedian's view as to whether or not Hitchin's edit was "idiotic", or the more polite words they use. Even for dullards who don't get why he was doing it, it was only idiotic in the sense it inserted editorializing into an article.

Ordinarily this might be a bad thing, but when the person doing it is someone of Hitchin's stature, you'd think they'd be honoured. He gets paid to do that shit. In a top selling national newspaper, the only one they have formally banned as "unreliable". It might even be the first recorded case of someone who is eminently qualified as an analyser of words and arguments, donating their skills to Wikipedia for free.

Ming agreed with the Wikipedians so much, his need to announce this view was him use it as the launch point for another one of his shit threads on Wikipediocracy, which, if we are to attempt to extract any wider point (since, as we know, pointing out Ming's basis for argument is horseshit is a pointless exercise because he defines truth differently to the rest of us), he rather lazily seems suggests an encyclopedia should not carry accusations about dead people. He surely doesn't mean that, but some finer variation. But as ever, his shit posting style and general stupidity certainly has you wondering.