View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:15 pm




Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Black Kite 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2884
Reply with quote
:?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =860600760
Quote:
I'm generally considered to be a pretty intelligent person
Um, by who? And do they operate heavy machinery?

I think it obvious that the level of intelligence of any Administrator who manages to fuck up so badly they have to be admonished by ArbCom, is in question.

The paperwork doesn't lie.....
Quote:
For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.
How hard is it to follow WP:ADMIN? Not very, in truth. Well within the capabilities of someone who is genuinely a pretty intelligent person.

{citation needed}, as they say.


Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:44 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2884
Reply with quote
Quote:
Observation by Black Kite
Should be declined, obviously. So Trump offends thousands of people on a regular, if not daily, basis through his tweets and other pronouncements ... but when someone points this out on Wikipedia, it shouldn't be allowed because some editors might be offended? I believe the phrase we reach for here is "I think not". On a more policy-based level, ArbCom is not XfD Round 3. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I believe this is called a straw man. It's not even a very subtle one, the idea that Guy Chapman's essay was about pointing out how Trump offends people, is laughable. As laughable as the idea people right above his comment hadn't already pointed out the policy basis for why ArbCom needs take the case, which he hasn't acknowledged, much less attempted to refute in his blind assertion.

So, what we have here is a Wikipedia Administrator being EXACTLY what a Wikipedia Administrator is not supposed to be, right in front of ArbCom. An Administrator who has been admonished previously by ArbCom for not living up to the standards expected of Wikipedia Administrators.

Administrators are not supposed to flagrantly misrepresent people or issues, they are not supposed to ignore people or pretend they don't see valid concerns. Every comment they make is supposed to add value and be aimed at resolving a conflict, not exacerbating it. At the basic level, Administrators are not meant to be asshole trolls, they're meant to be policing the asshole trolls. The community is meant to be able to trust Administrators won't act like asshole trolls, and trust ArbCom will do something about it when they do.

So, what happened? Is Black Kite in the process of being demoted for cause (because no way would be admit he did anything wrong) as we speak? Of course not. What happened? NOTHING.

Administrator Black Kite gets away with manifestly not being a Wikipedia Administrator every single day, in what he says and does. And he is not alone. This is the systemic fault of a Wikipedia. This is why their governance system is dysfunctional. This is why that pile of crap they have collectively written does not remotely resemble an encyclopedia.

Wikipediocracy didn't notice of course. Black Kite is a member in good standing over there too. You want us to hide that observation Jake? Say it in a private forum? I bet you fucking do. I'd be embarrassed too.


Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:49 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2884
Reply with quote
As I'm sure has come up before, Black Kite has previously been admonished by ArbCom for conduct unbecoming an Administrator, specifically casting aspersions.

Today, editor DBigXray filed a complaint at AN/I about Black Kite claiming without any evidence that....
Quote:
although it doesn't surprise me given that it's come from an editor who regularly opposes SIIT (User:SheriffIsInTown ) on many articles and has an interest in them being 1RR'd
An obvious aspersion if ever there was one.

So, what did the Wikipedia governance system do?

Well, Administrator Drmies tried to shut the report down on the basis three examples of interaction were found, only one of which is a dispute, and an unremarkable AfD at that. This is apparently enough for Drmies to conclude the reporter committed a grave offence by accusing Black Kite of lying, even though it is clearly not evidence backing up Black Kite's aspersion. Oh, and Drmies lambasted the filer for not being clear enough in his report, even though it is pretty clear what he is reporting and why. Strange then that the report was clear enough for Drmies to rapidly conclude they were lying though. And in an example of huge irony, Drmies also accused him of not providing evidence. He did - what more evidence do you you need of an Administrator casting an aspersion, than the diff and quote? Perhaps he meant "it seems he has some real issues with WP:Casting aspersions.", but since as a former Arbitrator and participant in the incidents that led to his admonishment, Drmies knows this can be proven, it was obviously just a way of reflecting attention way from Black Kite.

Black Kite himself of course tried to deflect attention away from the accusation, putting it on the filer to prove he isn't hounding the other user. An impossible task, obviously (but they provided proof in the form of a lack of visible interaction as measured by a tool). This was, of course, ignored by Black Kite, who just kept on acting like the filer was hiding their true motives for requesting a 1RR on his supposed nemesis. He continued to try and pick an argument with the reporter (while ignoring their request for evidence to back up their aspersion), even after Administrator wannabe power~enwiki had pointed out the thing Black Kite was fixating on as evidence of nefarious intent, the 1RR request, could be seen as an honest mistake.

SheriffIsInTown even turned up to claim he absolutely is being hounded by DBigXray (offering no evidence to back up this accusation, with nobody even asking him to do so), while also bizarrely claiming that WP:NOTBURO means that if Black Kite was mistaken in the particulars of his accusation, it's no big deal.

Another Administrator Ivanvector also tried to shut the report down, simply saying Drmies was correct.

AN/I gadfly Softlavender of course turned up, whining that the report was improper because the filer had not contacted Black Kite with their concerns first, and this obviously means they have bad intent and should be punished. She said this even after it has already become clear that extended discussion with Black Kite has taken place in the report, with the filer getting nowhere in addressing their concerns (so his next stop would naturally have been AN/I anyway).

Another random asshole turned up to simply echo Drmies and Softlavender, offering no reason why they were talking sense.

With the filer having asked a further three or four times for evidence that Black Kite's aspersions could be backed up, and being ignored, Administrator Ymblanter shut it down in the basis of was going nowhere. Quite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =866422753

In conclusion, Black Kite is clearly being protected by the establishment of corrupt Administrators and shitheel regulars. If Wikipedia worked, incidents like this (none of this was out of the ordinary for Black Kite) would have seen him desysoped long ago.

Of course, Black Kite is a respected member of Wikipediocracy. If you think you would have any success getting him to explain any of this over there, I have a bridge to sell you. Black Kite is their kind of Wikipedian. Most of them have personally benefited in their own Wikipedia editing from his corruption.


Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:27 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2884
Reply with quote
Quote:
Closer's comment. As far as I could see, this wasn't a discussion on a community ban; it was a posting by Ritchie333 asking for feedback on his indefinite block ("As ever, you don't need to ask for my permission if you think Winkelvi should be unblocked - just do it.") The feedback was that the indefinite ban was correct. At no point did I see a formal request for a CBAN; therefore I didn't close it as one. There were some people that !voted for a site ban during the discussion, but there were nowhere near enough for me to close it as such. If a CBAN is to be imposed, I think it must go through a formal discussion. I may be wrong, but that's how I saw it. However TonyBallioni is probably correct in that there would need to be a community discussion to unblock, so perhaps the difference is only semantic anyway. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I'm not sure why so many admins get this wrong. It is made explicitly clear in policy at WP:CBAN: Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Where does the confusion lie? Nihlus 00:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. I'm quite aware of what WP:CBAN says, but there's a big difference between a discussion that says "I've blocked this editor indefinitely - does the community think they should be CBANNED?" and "I've blocked this editor indefinitely - does the community think my block was correct, or should be shortened or even vacated"? I think, as I said above, this is semantic; Winkelvi isn't getting unblocked without a community discussion, and is therefore technically CBANNED anyway because the method for removing a CBAN would be the same community discussion. As I always have on my userpage, if any other admin thinks I've f***ed this up, feel free to fix the problem without informing me. Black Kite (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Semantics are important as it is important to explicitly tell the user what restrictions they are under. You've not done that. And trying to pawn it off to another admin to fix your error is pretty low. Nihlus 01:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As I said, if another admin thinks this extends to WP:CBAN territory, they are welcome to make that formal. That's not "passing it off", that's called "doing what you think is correct, but being prepared to defer to someone who thinks you haven't". Black Kite (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

So you are selectively applying policies? That's poor accountability. Nihlus 01:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing me with someone who cares what you think. I've made my position clear. Goodnight. Black Kite (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Wow. Just wow. Nihlus 04:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Wow indeed.

If Wikipedia worked, if it selected Administrators for their sound intellect and good judgement, well, for one you likely wouldn't find yourself in this position anyway. But even when you do, it would take five seconds to recognise Ritchie isn't empowered by policy to ask for a review of an indefinite block without it leading to a community ban if the block is endorsed, even if the dumb prick thought he was implicitly leaving that off the table.

So you would never be in a position where Black Kite compounds the problem by closing the discussion using the framing he has merely inferred from Ritchie's opener and the misinformed commentary from the peanut gallery. Ritchie being a dumb prick whose laziness and stupidity makes work for others and the likelihood of ill informed input from the peanut gallery are both expected elements of the AN/I experience. Black Kite is meant to factor those out and give an outcome that aligns with policy, if we are to believe him when he says he knew fine well what it says. He has no excuse, especially not when he admits the difference between what he thinks his action means, and what it actually means, is semantic.

This entire culture of it being OK to be an idiot while being an Administrator because someone else can always undo it, but nobody ever undoes it because it is somehow taboo to consider long service Administrators could remotely be idiots, is farcical.

That pales into insignificance when we have an Administrator who has been formally admonished by Arbcom for failing to adhere to the standards expected, still thinking it is OK to end this exchange the way he did. Especially when the only reason he is frustrated or angry, is because he fucked up, and his explanations of why it doesn't matter don't amount to much.

Black Kite is happy to ignore it because it looks like it will never be a situation he will encounter, but it absolutely matters that victims of the Wikipedia circus properly understand their situation in the eyes of the wikilaw, what they must do to be reformed. Those who do not care for such things, are merely showing they do not accept that those they block could be reformed, or at the very lesst, should be treated with dignity and respect, even if they deserve none. Which appears to be yet another example of how Black Kite fails to meet the expected standards of an Administrator.

Will anyone do anything? No. Because Wikipedia is the sort of fucked up shithole where Black Kite (and Ritchie) are considered a good Administrators. Which begs the question, what does a bad one look like?

On a merely practical level, a lot of cumulative editor time is being wasted now because Ritchie and Black Kite are idiots. And both are of course, well known for their distaste of people wasting their time on things that are not 'building the encyclopedia '. Shitcan these too fuckwits, stop them from making another Administrative decision in their lives, and a hell of a lot more would get done on any given day.


Sun Nov 04, 2018 5:07 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2884
Reply with quote
This fuckin guy.

Having an absolute tantrum because ArbCom won't take his Case against BU Rob.

THEY'RE PROTECTING ONE OF THEIR OWN he screams, the little baby.

In reality, they merely pointed out the obvious - just as Administrators like this prick are not special, when it comes to simple (alleged) violations of basic conduct policies by Arbitrators, the complaints department for dealing with them is AN/I.

The little baby claims AN/I wouldn't deliver him the result he wants, they might instead prefer to focus on the main event that he drew this little sideshow out of, and that would harm his friend The Rambling Man, who BU Rob is inconveniently pointing out seems to have regular defenders who care not what the specifics of a complaint are, they see the exercise more as...protecting one of their own.

Tough shit.

I mean, you can't make this up. Here's a Wikipedia Administrator claiming the official processes he is a part of just don't work, when as everyone knows, it's usually him being part of the reason why they don't work. Unless I missed the part where he has ever sanctioned The Rambling Man when dragged to AN/I?


Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:45 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2884
Reply with quote
So, Black Kite just gave a brilliant example of who he is, and why he should no longer (and never should have been) a Wikipedia Administrator.

When he stumbled on the Wikipedia biography for author and computer science academic/historian Peter H. Salus, he was alarmed to see it had not had a single reference despite existing for fifteen years. I am not sure why he was so surprised, it is hardly a secret that referencing articles, even biographies, is not high on Wikipedia's list of priorities. With a single mouse click I can lay my hands on 2,000+ Wikipedia biographies with this exact problem. Right now. In 2019. Eighteen years after Wikipedia was born. From the bin marked 'shit for people to fix'. With three random clicks I found biographies dating from 2007, 2002 and 2013. So however/wherever Black Kite learned of this article, it clearly wasn't from rummaging through that bin looking for a useful way to donate his time to Wikipedia, even though the existence of that bin can justifiably be considered required knowledge for any Wikipedia Administrator.

However it was done, he found it in this state.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =838270504

For an article like that, which was obviously not a hoax, if you are certain the article doesn't need any immediate rectification for reasons of law or ethics (up to and including the sort of things only an Administrator has the user rights to do), which it appears Black Kite did not, and if your own meagre efforts to improve the article fail, as it appears Black Kite's did (so much for the merits of experience and tenure, he has been on Wikipedia a very long time and made thousands of edits), then all you should do is appropriately tag it for maintenance issues (which it already was) and pass the job on to someone else, perhaps the WikiProject with the skills and expertise to know where to look for references.

What you do not do, and Wikipedia policy is crystal clear on this, is to (ab)use the deletion process to have the article's merits assessed and the quality improved under the impending threat of deletion. What you also do not do, is propose an article for deletion if there are plausible reasons to think it would not be deleted if it was improved in the basis the claims within it are plausible and the only barrier is proving them to be true to Wikipedia's current understanding of the concept. These are two sides of the same coin which are more easily expressed by the oft-heard simple mantra, 'Wikipedia deletion is not cleanup'.

Unsurprisingly, Black Kite did the thing you aren't meant to do. His reasoning showed his motives pretty well.....
Quote:
Here's a BLP which may hold some sort of a record, having existed for 15 years without ever containing a single citation. It's clearly a guy who's written a whole load of books about UNIX and various other tech subjects, but I can't find anything about the actual person. Prove me wrong... Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
We already know it was not a record. Not even close. And since we now know people found the required references and were easily able to improve the article, we can assume his efforts to fix it must have been equally incompetent. Given he seems to have seen this as a challenge he was issuing to his fellow volunteers, we can probably assume he didn't even lift a finger to look, except perhaps a cursory Google search, just to be able to rebuff any claims he had not done even that.

The idea this was some kind of challenge/test, that he was abusing the deletion process to prove some kind of point, or claim some form of reward or recognition, for finding what he mistakenly believes to be an exemplar case of Wikipedia failure (odd given his status as an Administrator means he is part of the problem), is bolstered by what he did minutes later. He posted the fact he had put this article up for deletion on the Wikipediocracy forum. Despite their claims to be a criticism site, they have a long history of being (ab?)used for this purpose, like an unofficial noticeboard where you can post work requests. This should not please those Wikipedians who see that site as a haven of harassers and other bottom feeding scum who do not have Wikipedia's best interests at heart in any way.

But that is now a widely depreciated view of that site even at the highest levels of Wikipedia governance, it is nowadays very much seen as a Wikipedia affiliate/adjunct by the present day power players of Wikipedia, scum like Black Kite. We are the true critics now, and as such he would not have dared post that request here, because we are not his little bitches. What would have greeted him is what I am doing here, exposing the truth of what he did, and why it no longer even raises eyebrows on Wikipedia. Understand that basic failure in self-governance and indeed self-awareness, and you understand every single systemic issue Wikipedia has. Such as their ongoing problem of unreferenced biographies.

Putting the icing on the cake, apparently Black Kite was not remotely embarrassed by the fact that once he had broadcast this case in this fashion, inside and outside of Wikipedia, the article was fixed up to his satisfaction in a little over 24 hours, suggesting it didn't even need any offline research. He therefore withdrew his own deletion nomination.

Needless to say, it is, or rather used to be, considered prima facie evidence by the Wikipedia community that an Administrator lacks the competence required for the role, or was otherwise abusing the process, if he has to regularly withdraw his own deletion nominations after 1/7th of the time it can be wikilegally be left open before an actually competent Administrator closes it with a decision. Once or twice might be a mistake, we all make them, but even here, Black Kite's own arrogance has shown this was no error.

There is lots of negative media coverage out there about Wikipedia right now which quite rightly interprets an attempt to delete a biography as a judgement the person was not notable, and therefore then the sight of Wikipedia either mistakenly deleting it or having to have their asses properly kicked to keep it, both bolstering the idea Wikipedians have absolutely no clue what they are doing.

It is perhaps a benefit to Wikipedia that the media's understanding of Wikipedia is so poor there is a good chance they might mistakenly interpret this case of abuse as a legitimate benefit, since a better article resulted. Insiders might even claim it is a valid abuse under the auspices of 'Ignore All Rules', on this idea Wikipedia is not meant to be a self-defeating bureaucracy.

That idea would of course fall flat, on the very obvious grounds that if you proposed to codify Black Kite's "challenge" approach as a legitimate use of Wikipedia deletion, to make it Wikipedia policy, you would cause a riot. To say inefficiency is the least of the problems it would cause in an environment where nobody is (theoretically) being paid for their efforts, is an understatement.

If Black Kite intends to keep pulling stunts like this, there might very well be a riot. Or so you would assume. But such is the decline of Wikipedia, that the sight of an Administrator not only doing this, but then also declaring "I must try a few more of these.", both in the official Wikipedia record, and on the website well known for (in the old days at least) for conducting subversive campaigns against the good order of the encyclopedia, often with the help of embedded moles and double-agents, no longer raises an eyebrow.

In the current climate, the media coverage of a Wikipedia Administrator circumventing normal processes to bump an old white dude in the academic/tech sector up the queue for having their contributions properly acknowledged by Wikipedia, would and should not go down very well. If they understood this is what happened. But since the Wikimedia Foundation won't give them a press release telling the media this is their truth, and you know for damn sure Black Kite isn't about to hang himself in the media, this will not be their truth as told by the members of the press.

We will never be sure what the real truth is as to how or why Black Kite stumbled upon this article and seemed so intent to fix it. But if you know the man at all from detailed observations, if you have ever seen now he reacts to queries or criticism, seen now freely he lies when the truth would harm his own self-interest, you really can't discount the motives of conflict of interest, or even a financial motive.

In truth, Black Kite is no double agent, he has always been quite open about who wins when he is faced with a conflict of abiding by the rules of Wikipedia and doing something he wants to do for his own self-interest or his personal idea of what is best for Wikipedia. Wikipediocracy has also often shown their willingness to ban people who highlight what Black Kite is. A corrupt piece of shit. Doesn't matter how polite you say it, or how compelling the evidence. The parallels with Wikipedia's reaction to evidence of Administrator misconduct are obvious.

He may even have just simply be pissed off that all the women and the minorities are getting the institutional and media attention for fixing up their Wikipedia articles as a priority for systemic bias reasons, and so wanted to do something for his people. There's good reason to think he thinks this way, given which Wikipedia editors and causes has defended in the past, and the fact Wikipediocracy is the venue of choice for so many people who think that way too. I don't know it for a fact, but I just know Black Kite is an old white dude who has a background in tech.

Wikipedia Administrators. This is who they are. This is why Wikipedia is what it is. This is why Wikipediocracy's supposed mission of shining a light into its dark crevices, is long forgotten. They're the creeps whose beady eyes reflect the light of your torches.


Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:36 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2884
Reply with quote
Basically admits it...
Quote:
I did try (WP:BEFORE). I was pretty sure that any sources would be (a) offline, and (b) probably quite obscure, and therefore tricky to find. I was right. Which was why I posted it here. Worked, though, didn't it?
Hiarious that this guy is saying this on Wikipediocracy, at the same time they're going on about the Duning-Kruger effect to explain why people get banned from Wikipedia and their shitty forum. Clueless.

If the sight of Black Kite not knowing or caring what he did wrong is not a perfect example of the DK effect in action, if it is not a perfect illustration of why aims such a monumental failure, I do not know what is. The guy is a Wikipedia Administrator, it is expected he knows the rules, and the reasons they exist. What is the point even bothering to talk about the failures of regular editors, when we have examples of institutional incompetence like this?

Wikipediocracy is a place which happily gives the likes of Black Kite a platform. They stand by and watch, apparently afraid, or just too godamned stupid themselves to notice, to point out what he is.

Poetlister is of course trying to defend the moron using the usual excuses. Apparently it's fine for Wikipedia Administrators to be lazy as well as stupid. Not much of a higher standard, that. Not for the first time he has revealed his understanding of the problems of Wikipedia and their underlying causes, is......limited.


Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:23 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2289
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
Wikipediocracy is a place which happily gives the likes of Black Kite a platform. They stand by and watch, apparently afraid, or just too godamned stupid themselves to notice, to point out what he is.

Indeed, with Vigilant as the cherry on the dipshit sundae.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:47 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2884
Reply with quote
Bumping this thread for anyone interested in the FRAMBAN and relevant participants. It gives just a glimpse, for those prepared to use it, as to how totally unfit Black Kite is to be an en.wiki Administrator, and his deep links to the harassment site Wikipediocracy.

Black Kite's dirty blueprints are all over the Fram debacle. On at least one occasion he prevented the community from properly examining an extremely well prepared AN/I report documenting Fram's long history of misconduct. Tellingly, he shut that down with a message to the Wikipedians that they should be looking into Fram's critics instead. As seen above, this later manifested in him even trying to open an Arbitration case against Rob, one of the few Arbitrators who clearly wanted to take action against Fram, but were frustrated by their colleagues on the panel. And of course, in the aftermath of FRAMBAN, we know Black Kite played a main role in getting the Wikipedia community to focus their rage and anger on Hale, directing them to their harassment campaign.

In the cold light of day, where ArbCom being lenient on misconduct by Administrators whose sheer level of arrogant self-belief means it is only the threat of a full case that can ever get them to even reflect on their own behaviour, it is telling that ArbCom, when previously shown that Black Kite is an Administrator who is absolutely inclined to abuse his tools for his own personal reasons, and fuck policy, was let off with a mere warning. Which he has, of course, ignored.

Having Administrators like Black Kite and Fram around, is exactly why ArbCom has basically stopped warning Administrators, because it achieves nothing. So they either get cleared, or prosecuted to the maximal extent. Another ingredient in the recipe for FRAMBAN.

FRAMBAN happened because for the longest time, Wikipedia Administrators have been getting away with murder, playing a game of chicken with their nominal bosses, and eventually even ArbCom were hollowed out and captured, totally accepting that people like Black Kite and Fram can just do what they do, in couple contradiction to WP:ADMIN, and nothing should be done, because the people who benefit from it, would get real mad.

A while back, Black Kite blatantly lied to the community about his previous record of misconduct aimed at ignoring policy because a friend of his directly benefited from it. He did this right in front of Opabina Regalis, the exact sort of Arbitrator who has hollowed out the authority if ArbCom. She did nothing. That's the environment of failing self-governance that led to FRAMBAN.

He is, in every single way, the sort of Administrator the scum of Wikipediocracy admire. No wonder then, that they are just as unwilling to hold him to account as the toxic scum and compromised leadership of the en.wiki community.

Even as I type, I'm looking back at the Wikipediocracy forum to link to the latest example of the
WIkipediocracy management being quite happy for Black Kite to make accusations against someone who was a victim of a Fram harassment campaign, the accused responding with facts, and the thread getting locked, with Black Kite nowhere to be seen, a coward who never answers questions if the truthful answer would show him to be exactly what he is, corrupt to his very core. So it goes on Wikipediocracy, is how it went on Wikipedia. Hence, FRAMBAN, the inevitable consequences of not ensuring your local Administrators adhere to your local ADMIN policy, which of course, says lying and corruption are bad.

That thread has, of course now mysteriously disappeared.


Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:43 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 9 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.