Page 3 of 3

Re: How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:31 pm
by CrowsNest
I am still very angry about this stuff. Trying to move on. Truly. Realization that a lot of project work I was doing that was quietly impactful is now not possible. Outreach canceled. Data sets abandoned. Kaput.

Enraged right now. Are these the typical stages of grief or what?
Yes! So typical, I told you many months ago that this is exactly how you would feel if you made the mistake of not realising the gravity of your situation and took steps to protect yourself. You literally walked right into it.

I'm beginning to get angry that she either doesn't remember, or doesn't care, that she ignored my advice.

Maybe Jake can jog her memory. Oh no, wait, that might lead to the inevitable question, why am I not deemed the right kind of critic for Wikipediocracy...... :oops:

Re: How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:14 pm
by AndrewForson
According to the Kubler-Ross model, the five stages are denial and isolation, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

Re: How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:32 pm
by Daniel Brandt
AndrewForson wrote:There's an old saying somewhere -- don't get mad, get even. Perhaps some site should start to compile techniques for socking, vandalism, suggestions for hoax articles, evading checkuser, good places to buy good-hand and admin accounts and so forth?

Don't forget the possibility of doxing the bothersome admins who hide behind their screen names. Some of them are nearly impossible to discover, but most of them probably slipped up at some point since they became interested in the web. At least you'll make them nervous once they know you're on their case.

You'll want a site to display your research. My suggestion is to choose a domain name that is somewhat unusual. When you start getting DDoSed, get a half-dozen extra domains with the same front name, but with a different TLD on the end. Then you have some flexibility to switch the site around to your different domains when the DDoSers start homing in. You can even program your server to switch things around on the fly. Most script kiddies use canned DDoS software. If you switch the domain slightly, or switch your port number for the same domain, their DDoS software may not be able to adapt to the new situation.

I think DDoS attacks are dying down now, at long last. My problems with DDoS first appeared at the end of 2011, but in recent months they haven't been much of a bother.

The best part about doxing as a tactic is that it's legal. But don't do it if you are also hiding behind a screen name, because they'll try to retaliate by doxing you. And don't try to hide behind Cloudflare, because I'll find you!

Re: How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:24 pm
by CrowsNest
Attack them where most expect it!

On 24 August, there were 104,706 page views of the Wikipedia article for Robin Leach. Why? He died, of course.

On that day, for two minutes, instead of the reliably sourced cause of death, a stroke, the article apparently said he shot himself.

War, what war?

Now, if you can believe it, the good people of Wikipediocracy have spent today claiming it is not a big deal. Beeblebrox, Poetlister, AndTheGimp, all take the view this is somehow not an issue. Certainly not one worth reporting in the media.

From tiny acorns

Their lazy assumption seems to be that being up for two minutes means it was never seen. Well, on that day, it seems reasonable to assume it could have been seen by around 70 people. And that's on the pretty shaky assumption that those 100,000+ views were spread out evenly right across the day and night. Here it is relevant to note the death was announced on Twitter at 14.41 UTC, the vandalism occurred at 16.07 UTC. So 416 people seems like a more accurate guesstimate, if assuming 50,000 views in the first two hours. Not bad for 120 seconds of vandalism.....

Wikipedia, you know.....the encyclopedia!

They also lazily assume that everyone in the world understands Wikipedia can be vandalised, and indeed that it is officially not to be assumed to be accurate at all, ever, so you should not repeat what you find there on Twitter or Facebook without first checking the source. The fact that one of the three sources included in the article for the cause of death, a Forbes article, has been viewed just 622 times, puts that assumption into perspective.

Sick, sick, sick

And so we arrive at a familiar conclusion. Rather than sympathizing with the potential victims of Wikipedia, and it really isn't a stretch to see how those sort of numbers as a first seed quantity, could start a rumour that spreads far enough to affect friends and family in their time of grief, these pathetic fanboys who so laughingly like to think of themselves as critics, seek to excuse Wikipedia, absolve it of all blame. As if nobody within the cult has ever even uttered the words Do No Harm.


Not satisfied with that, these sick bastards have all but convinced themselves that the only feasible explanation for a reporter picking up on this story, is that they were the source of the vandalism. Their story was dropped at 16.39 UTC, and as they bizarrely condemn her for, it only included two lines and a screencap about the vandalism, the rest being standard obituary type stuff.

Anyone for cake?

As usual, they want to have it all ways. They condemn her for not writing enough about the vandalism, while arguing she should have written nothing at all. They argue she is a lazy hack who doesn't know one end of Wikipedia from the other, while also alleging she knows enough to knock up hoax pages using untraceable IPs, screen cap them, add them to her piece, all in under an hour, and be confident she would not be found out, her career ruined.

If she knows her way around Wikipedia and is generally good at her job, the timeline and story content is feasible. It would mean they have believe she is knowledgeable and good at her job.....

Fumbling in the dark

Worst of all, they want people to think they are Wikipedia experts, when they couldn't even find the vandalised version in the article history. WTF? Never heard of WikiBlame? Even if not, the vandalism was only the 23rd edit made to the article that day. You can't do twenty three mouse clicks before you publicly accuse journalists of making shit up? And then when someone shows you the publicly visible page anyone in the world can see, you accuse them of creating it themselves?

A love that dare not speak its name

And so yet again, we are at a familiar place. Anonymous cowards like this, making public accusations like that about people whose real names are easily found, with sexist overtones all round. All because they can't stand the thought of Wikipedia being criticised, because they love it so much.

To the shitmobile!

Beeblebrox loves it so much, he even emailed the reporter to question her. I'm guessing he didn't address her as "that hack", as he already had on Wikipediocracy. Rather than be grateful she bothered to reply, he used the content of that mail to launch further attacks on her professional standards. He of course did not reveal the full contents of the email, so we are apparently meant to trust this nerk that he is accurately summarising her message.

The full story?

We can assume Beeblebrox didn't furnish her with the details that might have allowed her to update her story. Namely that it seems it was only due to her story that anyone in Wikipedia thought to even delete that piece of vandalism in such a way that it could not be seen even in an old version, i.e. it couldn't be screencapped and/or passed off as legitimate information from Wikipedia.

Sack the janitors

By the time Beeblebrox got around to that, said old revisions had been publicly accessible for just over two days. Keen observers will note this was not his first thought on hearing about this vandalism today, he first had the idea to publicly trash the journalist and send her an email, and only then, clean up Wikipedia's mess.

Re: How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:34 pm
by CrowsNest
Liz is back. She popped into Wikipediocracy to explain why she's been away from Wikipedia, where she was an Administrator. She surmised they were interested in her welfare and whereabouts because creepy stalker Tarantino had posted about her Twitter feed...... ... 83#p227383

What she said, is wholly depressing......
When I have thought about Wikipedia over the past 2 years, I just think of certain people attacking me (I'm not playing the victim, just being realistic) but I think I have returned to being on an even keel. Maybe I can find a place somewhere on the site where I can contribute where I don't have a target on my back.


I don't mean to sound resentful, editing there was a rewarding time, I just have scars from my years there
The replies are, underwhelming. Naturally, not one has advised her she may be better off simply not going back at all.

Re: How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:40 am
by CrowsNest
Eagle wrote:The toxic user chose to file complaints with T&S rather than with the community in order to avoid WP:BOOMERANG. Does her vanishing preclude that scrutiny as a part of ArbCom's handling of the Fram case? If a toxic user leaves under a cloud, does the WMF put the user on the "Funding Banned" list or is the toxic user eligible for future travel and grants (which put any decision-maker in an impossible position due to the now well-known status as the significant other of the WMF Chair.)
Ah, he's all heart, isn't he? (believe it or not, he is referring to a victim of harassment as the "toxic user", first victimized by Fram, then by the scuzzballs of Wikipediocracy who led the revenge witchunt against her.)

I'm guessing if Eagle even has an opinion on the advanced rights holders whose cloudiness of resignation has been comprehensively unclouded by the community for reasons no better than the mob wants what the mob wants, he won't be airing it, much less seeking wider consequences for their acts. Not that any of those three rebel shits participate in Wikipedia beyond selfishly grinding on the scribble pad they didn't pay for and don't own.

Re: How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:35 pm
by CrowsNest
Wikipediocracy standing up for victims......not.. :roll:
Poetlister wrote:
Jimmy_Wales wrote:If you disagree with a particular decision, it's perfectly fine to say so. If you disagree in some really very strong way, it's perfectly fine to run for office as a member of ArbCom on that platform. What I think is not very helpful is to undermine the authority of ArbCom while simultaneously rejecting (rightly, in my view) the idea that the WMF should step in to detailed internal user issues in the fashion of twitter/youtube staff moderation. You can have the one, or you can have the other.
I hope that this is up on a noticeboard in WMF HQ. It is absolutely essential that they all realise this, and good for Jimbo that he said it. Will he press the point with the rest of the Board?
Gotta stand by the people who matter to Wikipediocracy.

(the Wikipedians)

Re: How Wikipediocracy simply compounds victims suffering

Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:11 pm
by CrowsNest
Oh, and regarding the OP, despite it being clear and obvious from her own postings that Brille needs to be kept away from Wikipedia for her own mental health, the collective reaction of Wikipediocracy to hearing she got caught socking, is to just keep egging her on, still eagerly trying to drag her into their sad little wars.