Globally Banned user nearly made it to Administrator

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Globally Banned user nearly made it to Administrator

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:04 am

Wikipediocracy really have sold out, hard.

Here's a rare appearance from Zoloft....
* Eostrix can't prove they are NOT Icewhiz.

* They can only decloak and prove who they are.

* Problem is, they would then be suspected of being (the anonymous) Icewhiz.

* Icewhiz is most likely a criminal.

* So there is literally nothing Eostrix can do to get out of this pickle.
What a lot of ABSOLUTE FUCKING HORSEHIT.

Here's what Esotrix can do.

1. Ask for ABSOLUTE clarity on how this ban came about. The when, where and why. Because NO FUCKING WAY should a 2 year veteran trusted by the entire community be treated WORSE when it comes to out of the blue shadow bans, than a dirty piece of shit like Fram.

If that's how ArbCom want to run things, and if the sheople that serve under their all powerful masters are fine with that, then they will have more more Icewhiz to deal with. These people can't keep making shit up as they go along, and not expect consequences.

This is the name of the revenge game. Fuck one person over and cost them two years work, and we'll sentence you to four years worth of disruption.

Just on basic fucking principle.

Look at the Global Ban list. There are now far more people who want to stick a hot poker in ArbCom's eye, than there are Arbitrators. You can't keep tabs on em all.

2. Ask for a written confirmation from ArbCom that whatever the nature of this alleged private evidence that supposedly, and via a circuitous path apparently, somehow connects Eostrix to Icewhiz, couldn't be the result of a forgery by one of Icewhiz's enemies.

If ArbCom refuse to answer, then you can probably take it to the bank that this ban could and probably was achieved by someone engaged in fakery, and ArbCom either being too stupid to account for that possibility, or too hell bent on their pathetic revenge games to care.

I mean, fuck, do they not realise that the whole world and his dog knows that the moral compass of this years ArbCom is summed up by Beeblebrox openly saying he would do anything to rid the movement of the "gross" Fae. I bet he fucking would. Scumbag that he is. Nobody has seen Fae around in a while, and it's no coincidence that followed a sustained period of harassment from Beeblebrox. If he can be that blatant about bringing shame on his office in a very public way, you can bet your life he is EVEN WORSE when it comes to matters that are not transparent.

Let him claim he would never do such a thing as fake evidence to ensure a hunch that Eostrix is Icewhiz becomes a dead cert. And let us laugh in his face and suggest that if he wants people to believe that, he should work on his public image more.

3. If 1. and 2. don't yield any proof this ban is unassailable, then together with the fact we already know the CheckUsers and at least three Arbs were unconvinced, don't waste your time appealing or grovelling, just ask a simple question.

If Wikipedia runs on assuming good faith, and if bans are supposed to be preventative, and if Eostrix is suspected of being Icewhiz, and if there was already some suspicious fuck of an Arb watching their every move, and if hundreds of community members couldn't find anything untoward in his record, then where is the harm in allowing Eostrix to carry on as an editor?

If they aren't observed doing anything that could be called material assistance to Icewhiz, for six months let's say, then let them become an Admin. And if they perform that role without reproach for another six months, consider the possibility that you were either wrong, or at the very least you just traded three solid years of good work, for one very easy block.

Never, ever, accept the framing of a situation the way the wilishits present it. There is always an alternative.

Sell outs need not apply.

HTD.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Globally Banned user nearly made it to Administrator

Post by ericbarbour » Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:59 pm

* Icewhiz is most likely a criminal.
:D
And Billy Burns is an old fool?
Look at the Global Ban list. There are now far more people who want to stick a hot poker in ArbCom's eye, than there are Arbitrators. You can't keep tabs on em all.
Once again: they have done uncounted thousands of stupid, arrogant, selfish things. Yet.....few things make them look sillier and pettier than an "official public List Of Official Enemies Of The Glorious Wiki-Revolution". Which includes numerous unidentified and unverifiable sockpuppet accounts and at least one person who never edited or logged into Wikipedia AT ALL, but had the temerity to show up at one of their little get-togethers and try to take pics of a few cult members.

Furthermore: I can't remember seeing them take anyone OFF the stupid list. Every year it just gets longer and longer. The log for the ban list is running about 2000 accounts right now, so the "official list" isn't even complete. They ban accounts they THINK might be socks of the previously banned.....

User avatar
Kumioko
Sucks Mod
Posts: 860
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 177 times

Re: Globally Banned user nearly made it to Administrator

Post by Kumioko » Sun Oct 31, 2021 10:28 am

Wikipediocracy used to have plenty of banned editors commenting but when Zoloft too ovee he banned them all. He sold out so he could make WPO another pro wikipedia forum.
#BbbGate

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Globally Banned user nearly made it to Administrator

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Nov 02, 2021 2:43 pm

 If a malicious actor looking to damage Wikipedia has to maintain an account with thousands of useful or neutral contributions while participating for years, just to get found out, who's really getting played here, us or them? Ganesha811 (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Icewhiz spent two years, making 22,000 edits, to get to a failed RFA with his/her sockpuppet. At two minutes per edit (to be conservative), that's more than 700 hours contributed to a project that he/she doesn't seem to believe. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is to spend one's time elsewhere? -- John Broughton () 04:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
sadly the Eostrix account only made c.8,500 mainspace edits, of which 84% were automated.[1]. So the account only made 1,429 normal mainspace edits, using John Broughton's 2 mins per edit that is only 48 hours. That pales into insignificance against the time wasted by the community in order to identify, prosecute and post-mortem this mess. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
:lol: :oops: :ugeek:

:whambo:

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Globally Banned user nearly made it to Administrator

Post by ericbarbour » Tue Nov 02, 2021 7:18 pm

Icewhiz spent two years, making 22,000 edits, to get to a failed RFA with his/her sockpuppet. At two minutes per edit (to be conservative), that's more than 700 hours contributed to a project that he/she doesn't seem to believe. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is to spend one's time elsewhere? -- John Broughton () 04:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
sadly the Eostrix account only made c.8,500 mainspace edits, of which 84% were automated.[1]. So the account only made 1,429 normal mainspace edits, using John Broughton's 2 mins per edit that is only 48 hours. That pales into insignificance against the time wasted by the community in order to identify, prosecute and post-mortem this mess. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
THAT MAKES YOU SUCKERS, DOESN'T IT, SUCKERS? HA HA HA HA SUCKERS.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Globally Banned user nearly made it to Administrator

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Nov 10, 2021 5:17 pm

Ritchie333@Wikipediocracy wrote:...frankly I agree with the other posters that a genuine non-sock would have given up and gone elsewhere by now
:lol:

:oops:

This is the guy who hand picks their Administrators!

The way to prove you've been wrongly accused of being a sock after two years of dedicated and problem free editing?

Walk away!

Lest we forget...
Support per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESTALMAT, we need more admins commenting on the content, not the creators. And "Actually, this particular socking situation can be addressed with partial blocks and/or protection." - yes, do the minimum necessary to prevent disruption - totally agree. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Not that I need to reaffirm my support, but the answer to Q9 is excellent, easy to read, persuasive and informative. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Although I guess in a way, innocent guy walks away after being totally butt fucked, is the least disruptive way to approach such a thing.

I swear to fucking God, if the wider world knew Wikipedia editors were THIS FUCKING STUPID, the fucking thing would have been burned to the ground by now.

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Mod
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 635 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: Globally Banned user nearly made it to Administrator

Post by boredbird » Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:07 am

Bumping this thread as the subject is now a topic in an academic journal and an arbitration case.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Globally Banned user nearly made it to Administrator

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:03 am

boredbird wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:07 am
Bumping this thread as the subject is now a topic in an academic journal and an arbitration case.
Links? My searches didn't turn much up.

There was no "arbitration case", just a mindblowingly stupid argument on the arbitration noticeboard. The "decision" was pure Beeblebrox bullshit--the other arbitrators delicately tiptoed around it. COWARDS.

The Signpost entry was suitably risible.

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Mod
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 635 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: Globally Banned user nearly made it to Administrator

Post by boredbird » Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:49 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:03 am
Links? My searches didn't turn much up.
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=5&t=2688

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 23.2168939
VolunteerMarek wrote: Any reason why you published an article obviously co-written by a person (Icewhiz) who was globally banned from Wikipedia (and Twitter, and Reddit) for doxxing other Wikipedia editors and threatening to rape their children and making death threats?
https://twitter.com/VolunteerMarek2/sta ... 4073929730

From the ArbCom thread.
My very best wishes wrote: Icewhiz probably helped authors to prepare the article based on its style.
Piotrus wrote: Given that Icewhiz has explicitly stated that his goal is to destroy the reputation of his "enemies", and has duped outside media outlets into repeating his slanderous claims…
Volunteer Marek wrote: If they don't deliver the kind of verdict that Icewhiz, or Grabowski & Klein, desire, they may fear they will experience harassment similar to what I have incurred.
GRuban wrote: Decide that the article is tainted by association with Icewhiz, and basically ignore it ... and thereby firmly enstate the no less frightening precedent that [i[]even writing an article in a peer reviewed journal[/i] won't change an Arbcom decision.
Buffs wrote: By taking up this matter (and it's my understanding that the impetus of this is Icewhiz himself) you are effectively including a wide swath of his opinions in the matter. This effectively makes public publications a back door to having views aired even though they are banned.
TrangaBellam wrote: A Twitter account eponymous to one of the mainstays of this (would-be) case has accused two highly reputed scholars of publishing material ghost-written by Icewhiz
Harry Mitchell wrote: I would suggest that the journal paper in question be given limited weight at least because of the obvious association with Icewhiz.
ThadeusOfNazereth wrote: I want to note my disappointment at the wide array of WP:ASPERSIONS being cast here, including people alleging the peer-review process was bypassed, that the article was somehow ghostwritten by a banned editor, and that one of the authors wrote the article to improve their own Wikipedia coverage.
Barkeep49 wrote: From what I'm reading here the issues are: improper association with Icewhiz, doxxing, and poor scholarship.
GeneralNotability wrote: I do not care one bit for people suggesting the article was heavily influenced (or worse, ghostwritten) by Icewhiz.
Beeblebrox wrote: I think it is fairly clear that a full case, one that is not being stage-managed by a banned troll, is needed, so I vote to accept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _in_Poland

See also.
Volunteer Marek wrote: Levivich, you keep claiming that the idea that this was a "hoax" is well sourced, by aside from the Haaretz article that was essentially ghost-written by Icewhiz or its derivatives, there are no other sources calling it a "hoax".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... /Archive_2

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/201 ... 6f77000000

Piotrus and Volunteer Marek made a lot of edits to Grabowsky's biography.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... &limit=500

Now there is new kind of biography for Benjakob in project space. Just to keep track of him I guess.

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

Post Reply