Despite everyone on their forum seemingly acknowledging Sagecandor is a reincarnation of Cirt, and is thus editing in violation of standing ArbCom restrictions, when Tarantino threatened to ban Wikipedia Administrator Dennis Brown from the forum until he acted on the proof provided (which easily surpasses the standard usually required), there was a panicked response from the die-hard Wikipedian members of the forum.
They apparently see something wrong with that threat. They needn't have worried, because Tarantino and Jake tucked their tails between their legs and retracted the threat. Granted, on face value it does seem odd to single out Dennis Brown when they have several other Wikipedia Administrators as members who could also act.
That is, until you realise the history - Dennis was the person who blocked Wikipedia editor SashiRolls for hounding Sagecandor (for their obvious biased editing). That put him on the path to expulsion from Wikipedia, which led him in turn to do most of the heavy lifting as a Wikipediocracy member to identify the Cirt-Sagecandor connection.
What is laughable, is the people who threatened to walk away if Tarantino didn't back down, are claiming the allegation needs to go through the proper channels on Wikipedia. Even though Sashi is blocked, and even though they acknowledge that for any other editor this is a process fraught with danger even when you have a cast iron case. It takes guts, and they have none. A formal investigation since been filed, but not by a Wikipediocracy member.
Much of this isn't news. Wikipediocracy have been letting the Wikipedia Administrators who are also members of the forum get away with this sort of shit for as long as I can remember, by simply not compelling them to answer questions they don't feel like answering, or doing things on Wikipedia they don't want to do (but should be).
Black Kite, the Administrator who for years actively prevented the discovery of the BetaCommand-Wereith connection, is of course a member. The psychologically unstable Malik Shabbazz is a member, and would be an Administrator now if he didn't realise himself how unsuitable he is. Not days ago, Jake himself happily claimed Eric Corbett isn't a sock master, a fact proven despite the Hurculean efforts of countless Administrators to prevent it being known. We saw the same when Dennis Brown unilaterally interpreted the ToU to ban journalists who don't identify themselves. Alex Shih is a member, but don't even think of asking him the things I have on this forum. There are countless other examples.
All of this goes to prove two ways which Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy suck - the inability to hold Administrators to account unless you are 'of the body', and the ease with which sock-puppetry is gotten away with, if you are 'of the body'. Having a citric forum which is on friendly terms with the scum, brings no perceivable benefits to the critic cause whatsoever. Laughably, one of their scum members even hailed Tarantino's climbdown as somehow proving their forum had a better culture than Wikipedia. That scumbag, of course, has good reasons not to want their Wikipedia activities questioned, as we have exposed here.
So, there's really no conclusion to draw here other than this. Wikipediocracy cares more about keeping their die-hard Wikipedian members happy, than holding Wikipedians to account. They care more about that than actually ensuring Wikipedia content isn't damaged or discredited by sock-puppetry, bias and all the other bad shit that unaccountable cliques can get away with, or exposing the means through which this occurs. And this isn't because they hope Wikipedia will die because of these faults, quite the reverse.
All that remains is to wonder why people who are interested in holding Wikipedia to account, who are interested in exposing the multitude of ways it sucks, persist with the site that is actively helping it to suck. Because it is hardly a mystery why die-hard Wikipedians who aren't interested in such things, are active members of the site. It's just another clique for them to enjoy. You get to block people and do bad shit on Wikipedia, then rub it in your victim's face on Wikipediocracy (the general public being the ultimate victim).
You can't just call yourselves a critic forum and not do anything about the things people like Sashi in their naivety being to you, expecting something to be done. Well, you can, but you can't expect others not to criticise you for it.
It's hard to come up with a word for what this is, but collaboration is as good a fit as any.
You can choose to fight or you can choose to collaborate
Re: You can choose to fight or you can choose to collaborate
It's no mystery. Until they beat him into line, Sashi was closer to being banned from Wikipediocracy than the likes of Dennis Brown ever has been. The very second it was even hinted at that something might be done about this issue other than simply being noted in the hope the assorted Wikipedians present might act, so called trusted and respected forum members screamed their indignation that any True Wikipedian be denied their inalienable right to give no fucks by some motley crew of outsiders.MrErnie wrote:It's interesting how completely obvious it was that Sagecandor was Cirt, but none of the admins who read this site or saw the similarities for themselves did anything.
As for those who noticed it on Wikipedia, and plenty would have, they will have seen from how Sashi also got several beatings at AE, the outright intimidation followed eventually by the inevitable block of the non-conformist from the Star Chamber itself, that it simply doesn't pay to raise these things unless you are a powerful player. The very sort of Wikipedian who hangs out at that forum, and feels quite comfortable doing so.
Re: You can choose to fight or you can choose to collaborate
As much as we might agree with the outcome, calling this a proper investigation is ludicrous. Pudeo laid out the evidence, Bbb23 asked Sagecandor if he had anything to say in his defence, he seemingly got one chance to clear himself, and Bbb23 swung the axe. That was the entire extent of the "investigation". As far as I can see, nobody on Wikipedia even knew it was happening, only readers of the critic fora.Poetlister wrote:This is no reckless act of Bbb23 but the result of a proper investigation.
Poetlister is such a useless jackass. A total Wikipedia apologist. This is the exact same approach to investigation and due process on Wikipedia which ensures scores of completely innocent people get blocked in addition to the guilty, more often than not at the behest of the guilty......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ds/Archive
Bbb23 is their Judge Dredd. Only in this case he dispensed justice only once the bodies have well and truly piled up.
As they're so proud to say, there is no justice on Wikipedia.
The very fact Sagecandor is not protesting the block, shows he is bang to rights. Like the vermin he is, he's now busily simply trying to save his ill gotten gains from speedy deletion. Apparently, being able to successfully con people into passing your work as a GA by not revealing your past, which would have had a direct bearing on the reviewer's thought processes, is a feather in your cap on Wikipedia.
Postmaster has a choice. He can choose not to say what he does, and be an actual critic. He prefers collaboration. Not surprising, since he has more than a passing interest in ensuring Wikipedia doesn't improve the way it detects and mitigates against sock-puppetry.