Amazon’s SanFranBan problem.
I have to answer you here, because your evil sister has GenDeskBanned me.
There is a huge different, madam gender. Amazon is something some people need, Wikipedia not. if you are not editing Wikipedia it safe you a lot of time and annoyance. And you can mutch better form your opinion about Wikipedia. If you are inside that digital madhouse or if you are a part of it it is much more difficult.
For me it was a very positive thing, otherwise I had never met Crow, Eric, Arthur, Steln, Bad, and who I forget. I had never find out the true behind the person Drmies, and there it was about. I was and I am not interested in returning, madam, I never was. I only wanted the answer to the question why. What happend. Why am I SanFanbanned.
A SanFanBan doesn't hurt me, madam. it is for me one big joke. The wikimedia foundation made such a tremendous blunder that it extreem funny is.
Me a pedophilia? I don't mind if people are thinking that, the people who are important for me weten beter. Know better. What a joke! You mention Molly, lovely with her cat, but for me a little girl playing in the big wiki world around. Katerine Maher? I can't take her serious with all her extreme stupide tweets and money hunting. She is a big, spoiled child for me, playing around in the world of adults. Snowfloks as Crow name them.
A woman, yes a real woman is something different madam. A real woman is not a wiki gender idiot, madam, a real woman is a proud women. A strong woman with brains, and the rest comes later or not at all. Both are is fine for me, madam. And is not someone with all kind of complexes and who had clearly all kinds of bad experiences with man, madam.
Did i had many affairs in my life? Yes, madam. Am I still friends with many of that woman? Again yes madam, woman are a extreem important part of my life.
Amazon’s SanFranBan problem
-
Graaf Statler
- Side Troll
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Amazon’s SanFranBan problem
A good blog for once, but yes, undermined by the implications that working with Wikipedia, through fair means or foul, is the way forward. Sensible people treat the SFBan as the release it is. And while Amazon is a big company, unlike Wikipedia, it is not a monopoly, there will be a price to pay it they get things too wrong in how they handle this sort of thing. For Wikipedia, there is no penalty because there is no competition.
This is ridiculous btw....
If they're not about fostering communications with Wikipedia, particularly the insiders, then why is virtually all their discussion geared towards those ends? Why does virtually every thread seem like it is meant to get someone inside Wikipedia to do something, rather than get someone outside of Wikipedia to notice what the fuck is going on inside that hell hole? And why are they so friendly with the powerful insiders that come to visit, if not to curry favour?
If they exist to discuss problems, go have a look at the reasons why so many of my threads got locked. It was categorically not because they did not seek to discuss problems. It was that they exposed the wrong problems, identified the wrong causes (typically named insiders, many of whom have Wikipediocracy accounts). For such activity, I was silenced. To this day they will not acknowledge the reason for the ban, or indeed that it is a ban. For Wikipedia and Amazon, read Wikipediocracy.
They are the acceptable face of Wikipedia criticism. They have Wikipedia's endorsement. The Scum Seal of Approval. And they worked hard to earn that. If they were seen as a threat, if it was thought for a second that their site exists to expose problems with the goal of persuading editors to leave and external actors to rain hellfire on Wikipedia, they would be treated as a threat. They are not. Not even a little bit.
Consultancy to the mysterious dark forces at the heart of Wikipedia is a very good way to see what they offer, as seen by this mysterious incident......
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 898&p=7039
The last line is a hilarious lie. Our very own Sashi had his return to Wikipedia negotiated by a Wikipedia insider who used the Wikipediocracy forum for the purposes of return to the cult consultancy. All endorsed and even encouraged by their resident membership, who were all ecstatic at Sashi's success. A dinner returned to the fold. Rejoice.
This is ridiculous btw....
Wikipediocracy is all about trying to get people accepted back into the cult. I was the most active person there as far as trying to convince banned or disillusioned editors that Wikipedia was not for them, and sensing the threat, I was rounded on, and Jake happily banned me for upsetting the majority of his membership with my dangerous views.Jake wrote:Why would anyone think Wikipediocracy is in the business of trying to curry favor with “insiders” to get people removed from the SanFranBan list? On the contrary, our goal is to improve people’s quality of life by convincing them to disengage from Wikipedia as much as possible. Obviously there are a few members who were banned wrongly and are angry about it, but (with two or three exceptions) they’re not looking to use criticism as a means of getting back in, and nobody at all is trying to use the site itself as means of establishing contact with “insiders.”
We exist to discuss problems, not broker deals with the people who create them.
If they're not about fostering communications with Wikipedia, particularly the insiders, then why is virtually all their discussion geared towards those ends? Why does virtually every thread seem like it is meant to get someone inside Wikipedia to do something, rather than get someone outside of Wikipedia to notice what the fuck is going on inside that hell hole? And why are they so friendly with the powerful insiders that come to visit, if not to curry favour?
If they exist to discuss problems, go have a look at the reasons why so many of my threads got locked. It was categorically not because they did not seek to discuss problems. It was that they exposed the wrong problems, identified the wrong causes (typically named insiders, many of whom have Wikipediocracy accounts). For such activity, I was silenced. To this day they will not acknowledge the reason for the ban, or indeed that it is a ban. For Wikipedia and Amazon, read Wikipediocracy.
They are the acceptable face of Wikipedia criticism. They have Wikipedia's endorsement. The Scum Seal of Approval. And they worked hard to earn that. If they were seen as a threat, if it was thought for a second that their site exists to expose problems with the goal of persuading editors to leave and external actors to rain hellfire on Wikipedia, they would be treated as a threat. They are not. Not even a little bit.
Consultancy to the mysterious dark forces at the heart of Wikipedia is a very good way to see what they offer, as seen by this mysterious incident......
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 898&p=7039
The last line is a hilarious lie. Our very own Sashi had his return to Wikipedia negotiated by a Wikipedia insider who used the Wikipediocracy forum for the purposes of return to the cult consultancy. All endorsed and even encouraged by their resident membership, who were all ecstatic at Sashi's success. A dinner returned to the fold. Rejoice.