Wikipedia Sucks!

Moved from another thread!

I saw this recently:
No secret I have been active on Fandom. User asks about my AWB pull requests and gets indeffed for good faith comment.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AAutoWikiBrowser&type=revision&diff=918888064&oldid=917893927
Editor asks WTF, unblock request denied "because it does not contain a reason for the requested unblock"
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blunt_hiker
That led to this being posted on ANI, which will almost certainly be linked back to me by a "checkuser" (probably Bbb23):
-https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=919007218&oldid=919006103

With the volume of networks I have edited from, it's really no surprise they associate so many accounts to me. I planned it that way. I literally don't have to do anything, they see my socks in their soup!

And...big surprise! Bbb23 found that this editor, with no connection to me whatsoever other than asking about my AWB pull requests I mentioned in the Fandom discord channel, is somehow connected to me.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=919031469&oldid=919028548

That's a lot of words to simply say Guy Chapman blocked User:Blunt hiker because he thought he was you, and when he had second thoughts and asked for it to be reviewed, Bbb23 "confirmed" (so presumably through technical evidence) that it was you.

Anyway, what I'm confused about is why you posted this here. I guess we could highlight Bbb23 doesn't seem to have properly filed the paperwork, not reblocking or tagging Blunt as one of your socks, but then I think everyone here can guess why he might choose not to do that.

It obviously isn't news to anyone here that Guy or Bbbb23 are cowboys, not new thread newsworthy anyway, and we've certainly seen far better examples of it than this, where at face value there has to be at least a 50% chance they're right and you're playing silly buggers.

I mean, we can point out that if some kind soul was to inspect the logs they could at least tell us whether or not Bbb23 has actually done a check and did find a confirmed match, but I think you already know such requests have been made before, andf funnily enough no kind soul in the CU group ever responds to our requests.

I'm quite sure nobody here wants to file an Ombudsmen Report just for you. I'd certainly not do that for people who had a history of openly stating how many socks they've created and those many clever schemes and ruses they've conducted, including of course socking on a range to pollute it for everyone else, which only does to show that at one point in time you were working on that range, and so could do it again if, for example, you were engaged in another ruse.

I suppose what you were really after was a pat on the back for having caused mayhem in the Administrative ranks. Well, yup, certainly looks like you brought them to their knees.......

Thank you, Bbb23. I got trolled again. Ho hum. Guy (help!) 16:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep at it. Another hundred of these, and you might make him utter a swear, and we'll really know he's annoyed.

If I had to make a decision at gunpoint, I'd say that was you. Nobody honestly cares enough to come to Wiki to take care of those requests. I'll give you a little credit - you did try really really hard not to sound like you.

How much time do you spend per week traveling around tagging different networks?

Kumioko wrote:Moved from another thread!

I saw this recently:
No secret I have been active on Fandom. User asks about my AWB pull requests and gets indeffed for good faith comment.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AAutoWikiBrowser&type=revision&diff=918888064&oldid=917893927
Editor asks WTF, unblock request denied "because it does not contain a reason for the requested unblock"
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blunt_hiker

This was all routine. I find it odd that Kumioko has the level of experience he had and appears to not understand block/unblock guidelines and actual practice. First of all, the block was completely predictable. Mention the name of a banned user, asking for something congruent with what the banned user might want, get blocked, it's like clockwork. Exceptions would be rare. And it doesn't matter if the request is legitimate or not. The operational rule is a ban is a ban is a ban, and "fuck WP:IAR. That's only for us, not for banned users."

Why was it necessary to mention "Kum1oko/Reguyl@"? Whenever a filter has a hit, it generates notices that many admins watch. I suspect the reason was that the purpose was to get blocked, so that there could be a complaint. What was surprising here was how long it took to whack this account.

Any unblock request that complains about the blocking admin is almost certainly dead in the water.

The whole thing stinks. What's Reguyla's Fandom user name? (Reguyla) That's what the user would use, not "Reguyla/Kumioko" or the munged version to bypass the edit filter.

That led to this being posted on ANI, which will almost certainly be linked back to me by a "checkuser" (probably Bbb23):
-https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=919007218&oldid=919006103

Really, Kumioko, do you think we are idiots? A prediction that a checkuser will tag is about as close as an admission, to "It was me!", as I can imagine other that one is the sock master, or certainly knows the range being used and the user agent of the other user.

With the volume of networks I have edited from, it's really no surprise they associate so many accounts to me. I planned it that way. I literally don't have to do anything, they see my socks in their soup!

And they don't care. If a new account is wrongfully blocked, they leave talk open, and, as well, if they are completely wrong, there is little harm. But this was you, or a meat puppet, and, again, they don't care. Meat puppetry for a banned user is actually a ToU violation.

And...big surprise! Bbb23 found that this editor, with no connection to me whatsoever other than asking about my AWB pull requests I mentioned in the Fandom discord channel, is somehow connected to me.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=919031469&oldid=919028548

"No connection with me"? Really? None at all?
But the user admits a connection of a kind, and you expected checkuser ID -- which is quite unusual, unless you knew you had used the same network as the user, and how would you know that?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=919229131#User:Blunt_hiker The closed AN/I discussion.]

The title for this post is misleading. JzG did not, as far as I have seen, accuse "editors" of being Komioko. In fact, he didn't accuse any editor of being Kumioko, but he only interacted with one editor, Blunt hiker, by reverting comments and blocking. The obsessed conflate a single event into a pattern by this kind of language. JzG is an asshole, but did not moon the community here, he kept his pants on. This was all ho-hum routine, as expressed on AN/I. That you brought this here before the checkuser confirmation is extremely strong evidence that (1) you were Blunt hiker, or (2) you are in ready communication with this user, with the second possibility being a fish bicycle.

Bob Dylan: "To live outside the law you must be honest."

What you have shown is a readiness to be deceptive. We are not offended that you sock, socking is quite natural, but socking does not require lying and deception. Further, if you are going to bring up incidents, that you sock on Wikipedia does not generate a license to lie or to be deceptive with us. My own position is that owners of sites, and empowered communities, have the right to regulate participation, absent some contrary agreement or special condition.

In other words, the WMF has the right to ban me, as they have claimed, for any reason or no reason. There may be other conditions that also give me the moral right to disregard the ban, but I have not claimed that.

You have been prolific as a creator of socks, to edit Wikipedia, you have been open about that. There can be, in any ban enforcement, some level of collateral damage. If you would establish your own credibility, through honest disclosure off-wiki, you could actually ameliorate some of the collateral damage, but . . . I think you like it, and want it, as proof of how Wrong they are. Wrong, I tell you. They are Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, and they made me do this.

Kumioko is free to respond to this by PM to me even if otherwise restricted. If he does, and if it is worthy of any community attention, in my view, I will bring it here, so that he does not need to use up his quota.

Just so everyone knows I read this, I responded on Discord.

Can't you post a link? For your fans?

Graaf Statler wrote:Can't you post a link? For your fans?

Fuck 'em! If they wanted to read it, they shouldn't have blocked me to prevent me from posting it. If anyone wants to see it, they can go to Discord and look it up.

But Dysk his Discord is not what you call a busy place............

But don't spoil your last post for today on it. No big deal.

It's no big deal to me. As I mentioned, I'll just keep responding and if some dick wants to delete my posts or block me then fine.

Kumioko wrote:

Graaf Statler wrote:Can't you post a link? For your fans?

Fuck 'em! If they wanted to read it, they shouldn't have blocked me to prevent me from posting it. If anyone wants to see it, they can go to Discord and look it up.

So where's the link / URL?

And what's the difference between the Discord servers run by Dysklever and Ferret?