Wikipedia Sucks!

Unsurprisingly, the mere suggestion on Wikipedia by a brand new account that this is a false flag operation, was met with absolutely massive repercussions by General Notability, far out of all proportion to the disruption evident in the question.

A violation of INVOLVED too, clealry, since he is the very person who filed this case, and who would probably end up being the most hated person out of the whole lot of them, if it was ever revealed to be a giant pantomime, with him playing a leading role. If this were real life, he's the guy who gets arrested first, and gets pressured by the Feds to flip on those who came up with this scheme.

I'm telling you now, if this case doesn't end up with the Guerilla Skeptics being given an ultimatum by ArbCom to either transform itself into a transparent organisation where their members and activities are auditable by everyone, or a ban on the organisation, no matter how symbolic and unenforceable, then this was absolutely, positively, a false flag operation. A grand pantomime staged to somehow give some legitimacy to the existence of Susan and her dirty mole people as a quasi legitimate part of the Wikipedia "movement". An affiliate in all but name.

Take a look at the General's supposed "key questions" he offered to the robed ones to stand up his Request....

* Has GSoW engaged in inappropriate off-wiki coordination? (that is, coordination beyond normal discussion such as meatpuppetry or vote-stacking)

* If not, has GSoW in fact violated any Wikipedia policies?

* Are organizations like GSoW (that coordinate primarily off-wiki) acceptable? If not, how do we draw the line between this and, say, an edit-a-thon?

What a load of fucking shit.

The answer to 1. is impossible to divine due to the fact the whole fucking point of this group is to operate like a secret society, whose members are trained to be smart enough to know the best way to leverage the existence of a closed group with different goals to the average Wikipedian to their advantage. Lesson 1 being, how not to get caught. "Don't tell anyone you are a member of this group". Lesson 1, done.

And if you can't answer 1., then you can't answer 2., can you?

The answer to 3. is bindingly obvious, and needs no case. Organisations that coordinate off wiki are clearly unacceptable if they are on the wrong side of the line called transparency. The Wikipedia editors quite rightly LOSE THEIR FUCKING MINDS whenever an editathon is run and they haven't been given a full list of the accounts and articles affected. And if the organiser refused to pony up that information when requested, they would be in deep, deep, shit. This is all established Wikipedia policy and practice.

So what the actual fuck is going on here?

It's simple. General Notability framed the "key questions" in this fashion because his intent is to ArbCom wash the Guerilla Skeptics. A few individual actors will be censured for what little bad editing has been uncovered, but it will be glossed over in the findings as being presumed to be the actions of lone wolves, with no proof anyone trained or directed them. They will have already been told (or will otherwise just know) to simply accept these findings as pawns in a wider game, rather than get upset and rat the group out.

He posed 1., already knowing there is little to no direct evidence of inappropriate coordination, as opposed to individuals editing poorly or organic assembly of like minded people. This means 2. can be answered with, "well, since this group's aims are aligned with Wikipedia's, after a fashion, namely to be biased against woo and biased toward woo debunkery, I guess we should assume good faith, right?". This leads to concluding that 3. has to be answered in a way that finds acceptability in groups that organise off wiki and whose activities as a group cannot be assessed as a group, if their stated aims are aligned with Wikipedia.

This is a fucking stitch up.

The difference between the Mafia and the Guerilla Skeptics, of course, is that there's no good reason why, even if you stopped believing in the group, even if you had a massive falling out with them, there's no benefit to you of confessing your crimes and turning state's witness. You real world reputation still suffers the stain of you having once been a dirty mole person. And now, if you want to continue editing Wikipedia, you've also got to contend with knowing that hundreds of editors will be out to get you because you're a dirty mole rat, and you already know (it being a part of Susan's laughable claim for why her group needs to be a secret society), if a group of people want to harass you to shit using Wikipedia, especially if they include powerful Wikipedia people in their ranks, there's not a lot Wikipedia could or would do about it.

As Jehochman was recently observed saying to an editor who could have plausibly been a defector looking to do the right thing in this case....

....As for your attempt to maintain privacy by using a pseudonym, this is probably illusory. if your livelihood is at stake just refrain from editing. Keep yourself safe, and be well. Jehochman Talk 20:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

In other words, keep your mouth shut, if you know what's good for you.

That editor didn't keep their mouth shut, and so, as if by magic, they were shut up by.....General Notability.

What. A. Coincidence.

The very people trying to progress this case, are the very people working hardest to prevent it resulting in serious questions for the Guerilla Skeptics. And their supporters and the few members who are self identified, by contrast, seem quite calm and collected, as if they already know there's nothing to worry about.

None of this is getting talked about on Wikipediocracy, which is unusual, because as we know, they absolutely love a conspiracy theory. They came to it late, have said very little, and what there is, strangely mirrors certain narratives in the case, or otherwise just downplay this potentially monumental scandal, down to a mole hill.

I wonder if they are in on it? Seems likely that they would be, right?

You pay your money, you get your cast members.

For shame, Jake.

Naturally, don't be asking alleged Wikipedia critics Wikipediocracy, Gender Desk or Eric Barbour about any of this, they really don't have a clue, for various different reasons.

Very funny. I've posted the book wiki article about the GS before. They are very damn secretive (even more so than the pro-Israel gang or Military History Wikiproject) so I don't have lots of personal details for you.

So, it appears that subreddit consists of you and Abd babbling at each other. You need an AUDIENCE, gentlemen.

Also, the Arbcommoids forgot some of the worst accounts:

Socks which appear to be directly involved include Barney_the_barney_barney (T-C-F-R-B), MrBill3 (T-C-F-R-B), Alfonzo Green (T-C-F-R-B), Joshuafilmer (T-C-F-R-B), Valis55 (T-C-F-R-B) and others. Many are members of Wikiproject Skepticism, a project with some rather questionable members. (See Joshua Schroeder, Tyciol, Noleander, Ellen Smith, Frank Bednarz, Sage Ross, William M. Connolley. Plus longtime players Aaron "VoiceOfAll" Schulz (currently a WMF software developer), "Loremaster" (see Transhumanism), "IRWolfie", Doug Weller, and WMUK pest Martin Poulter, many of whom are savage anti-Scientologists.)

Embarrassingly obvious that stuff like this is being done to a script....

Remember, this is offered as "evidence" to inform on the "key questions".

I have been a member of GSoW since 2014. As a GSoW member who is not specifically an "involved party", I offer my perspective.

(the majority of what he offers first and in the majority, is entirely irrelevant to the key questions, and is simply proof that people trained by this group to be able to look like good faith editors, can achieve this task quite easily, since after all, it's not like Wikipedia editing is a recognised skill)

I have never seen any inappropriate co-ordination at GSoW (e.g. canvassing, meatpuppetry, or tag teaming) – on the contrary, when there are contentious issues or votes (AfD, DYK, etc.) members are regularly reminded NOT to pile on with votes. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any way to provide evidence of what did not happen.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't know of ANY way?

None at all?

I have a few ideas. For example, since Susan is the founder and self admitted member of the group, you could post examples of her alleged messages to the group where she has supposedly reminded them of the rules against canvassing.

It still wouldn't prove much given it can't be independently verified, but not being prepared to even give a date and time and the content of an example post of this sort, will make people wonder if they are being misrepresented, or are indeed, entirely mythical.

In my mind, if Susan has ever even advised anyone not to pile on with votes, I imagine all she will have said was, remember guys, we're not amateurs. Don't just turn up and vote in lock step, or per nom. Be smart, and offer a unique and fully explained vote. That is how we can blend in and make it very hard for those who don't know we are all members of this closed group, to claim we are acting in a coordinated fashion.

ericbarbour wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:17 pm

Naturally, don't be asking alleged Wikipedia critics Wikipediocracy, Gender Desk or Eric Barbour about any of this, they really don't have a clue, for various different reasons.

Very funny.

I for one marvel at this newfound restraint. Usually it would be at least a few paragraphs distracting from the intended discussion. This is just a harmless aside.

Overall It's long as usual but it hits the key big picture points and I really enjoyed reading it. Thank you HTD.

Jake Is A Sellout wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:02 pm

Unsurprisingly, the mere suggestion on Wikipedia by a brand new account that this is a false flag operation, was met with absolutely massive repercussions by General Notability, far out of all proportion to the disruption evident in the question.

The wikilosers are HTD's most faithful audience, They obsessively follow his posting to figure out which new accounts to ban.

Unsurprisingly, the ArbCom case was exactly as I predicted.

A total stitch up. A sham.

Not a single part of it went anywhere close to saying what Guerilla Skeptics does is wrong.

QED. The true purpose of the case was to upturn twenty years of culture and actually legitimise what these dirty mole people think is acceptable. Secrecy and off wiki coordination is now allowed. You must trust that it won't be abused, and if that doesn't work for you, shut your damn mouth unless you have actual proof, which you will never get unless tbe conspirators screw up or suffer a leak. Fuck transparency. Fuck you.

Sure, there are some words about what people would like them to do, but fuck off with that bullshit. If you didn't already know these people are arrogant cunts who don't give a fuck what outsiders think (a trademark of elite clubs, natch), you weren't really paying attention, were you.

Led by Beeblebrox, inspirational leader as always, there was some pathetic whining about how you can't regulate what is done off Wikipedia, which is of course, a total fucking lie. People have been banned to the moon and back, solely based on shit they did off wiki. Countless remedies have been written where there is no hope of enforcement, the point was to lay down the principle. It's unusual that people actually turn up on Wikipedia and start asking where the under age users are because they're horny as fuck. They still made it policy that pedos aren't welcome.

Upsides are that Vigilant was made to look like a total tit (easily done, he never does think things through for logical/moral consistency) and Wikipediocracy overall were shown to be not all that outraged to see Wikipedia officially endorsing secrecy and off Wikipedia chat as a key part of "movement" movementing.

Not hard to see why, since one way to interpret this case, is as an endorsement of Wikipediocracy itself. I wonder if NewYorkBrad was the paid consultant there? The real one, not the fake one that is soft on pedos and hangs around here.

Jake will be pleased. If you're gonna sell out, go ALL IN.

-----

Don't fucking embarass yourself by even commenting, Eric, I guarantee you've got nothing useful to say.

Jake Is A Sellout wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:07 pm

Secrecy and off wiki coordination is now allowed.

IT ALWAYS WAS.

And that goes right back to 2002, when Jimbo and his idiot "administrators" plotted to force Larry Sanger out. They succeeded, and slowly realized how powerful they were in that little universe. It's all petty shit, but most of them are petty people and you can't expect them to act "responsibly".

You're not gonna fix their shit by trying to get a "balanced view" from Arbcom. The GS people have enough supporters in admin ranks to get away with literal murder. If they go the same way as past WP "cabals", eventually they will burn out and give up. But there will be megabytes of questionable-at-best content created before then.

ericbarbour wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 03, 2022 6:00 am

Jake Is A Sellout wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:07 pm

Secrecy and off wiki coordination is now allowed.

IT ALWAYS WAS.

And that goes right back to 2002, when Jimbo and his idiot "administrators" plotted to force Larry Sanger out. They succeeded, and slowly realized how powerful they were in that little universe. It's all petty shit, but most of them are petty people and you can't expect them to act "responsibly".

You're not gonna fix their shit by trying to get a "balanced view" from Arbcom. The GS people have enough supporters in admin ranks to get away with literal murder. If they go the same way as past WP "cabals", eventually they will burn out and give up. But there will be megabytes of questionable-at-best content created before then.

What did I just fucking say, numbnuts? I said don't reply, because you will just embarass yourself.

I certainly don't need reminding that people used to do (and likely still do) stuff in secret.

The thing you missed, BECAUSE YOU DON'T FUCKING READ, is that doing shit in secret is now allowed. Not simply tolerated if you're powerful or connected and you don't flaunt it.

As in, you won't get anywhere even if you reported it ON WIKIPEDIA, even if you shouted it from the rooftops of the Wikipedia universe.

Thanks to Beeblebrox and company, it is no longer actually against anything Wikipedia stands for, to simply coordinate in secret. That is no longer against the rules, rules that were crafted in the wake of scandals like the EEML, which necessarily started with the position that it's fair and reasonable to assume that a bunch of Wikipedia editors meeting in secret, not revealing who they are or what they are saying, are in all likelihood up to no good. And yes, they will say they are following policy and offer some benign or even beneficial reason for their secrecy, because of course they would.

It is only going to be seen as a problem now if you can prove these people are coordinating for the purpose of doing things that are against the rules. But now you won't be able to infiltrate a group to collect such proof, nor use any other means of finding it beyond asking nicely, once, because it has been accepted by the Holy ArbCom that these groups need their secrecy to enjoy their chosen hobby (which makes doing anything that interferes with that, de facto harassment).

The GS Cabal therefore, won't fizzle out. It had operated since 2010 without any official backing, just the usual under the table nods and winks. It now has official backing. State sanctioned protection.

That's what this case was all about. Legitimising the illegitimate. Perhaps because these things have become too dangerous and potentially scandalous to keep under wraps, in a world where the WMF now has aspirations to speak before the United Nations and governments about universal rights. The headlines write themselves.

It was obvious it was a sham from the fact a habitual but establishment rule breaker was the one who filed it, and then swiflty blocked a benevolent passer by who merely asked if this case had any intention of proposing a ban of secretive groups like GS on basic principle. It clearly did not, as is now proven.

If you don't understand the differences here, if you can't grok the significance, and more importantly, if you can't stop speaking to me as if I know fuck all, then please, reconsider my request that you just fuck off. And take your fucking irritating banner with you.

Your time is over. You did not succeed.

The time of the stone cold killers, is at hand.

All that remains is to see if badmachine is an arms dealer or a second hand book store owner.

HTD.

After reviewing the "case" All I see is pages and pages and pages of nonsense.
The two conclusions I reached;

1) Roxy the Dog gets smacked on the nose with newspaper
2) Mentally ill insiders, with too much time on their hands, run the insane asylum

Its like the old card game from Steve Jackson called "Illuminati"


The object of Illuminati is to take control of the world.
You start with a single Illuminati card, representing your
own secret conspiracy. During the game, you take over other
Groups (represented by cards). These Groups are added to
your Power Structure and do your bidding – unless a foe
takes them from you. You may win either by controlling
enough Groups, or by fulfilling the special goal of your own
Illuminati.

http://www.sjgames.com/illuminati/img/i ... _rules.pdf

So you have a "secret society" of "skeptics" trying to defeat a "secret society" of fortune tellers
The "skeptics" intend to dominate the world by training Zealots who will coordinate their edits away from prying eyes
A secret society of wiki-idiots discover this heinous plot
Those rat-bastard rule-breakers must pay for what they did
A secret society of wiki-idiot-arbitrators gets involved to punish those rule breakers
Oh my, something to do, lets write pages of self-flagellating masturbating nonsense to justify our own self-importance
But wait, the idiot-arbitrators were infiltrated by the secret society of skeptics
Roxy the dog must pay for this offense! Not the leader of the skeptics
Conspiracy wins, the rules of the game don't apply to the Illuminati

If the world only knew..........

ericbarbour wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 03, 2022 6:00 am

Jake Is A Sellout wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:07 pm

Secrecy and off wiki coordination is now allowed.

IT ALWAYS WAS.

Best you can hope for is some group secretly conspiring off wiki to prevent some other group from secretly conspiring off wiki. What is ArbCom if not secret and off wiki?