The Kumioko Review

User avatar
The End
Sucks Fan
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:45 am
Has thanked: 1 time

Re: The Kumioko Review

Post by The End » Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:44 pm

Kumioko wrote:Yeah and not one of those are from Arbcom. Those were all from the WMF trust & safety section.

Now in fairness, most of these were just low level vandals and trolls. Very few rose to the level of requiring T&S action. It's just T&S doing something to make them look relevent.


Also, those were not "important" editors with the right social and political connections with the WP community. No one's going to go to bat for them and risk banning.
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"I am a dark bouquet of neuroses..."
- Jerry Holkins, Penny Arcade

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The Kumioko Review

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Nov 09, 2019 8:19 am

Kumioko wrote:Now in fairness, most of these were just low level vandals and trolls. Very few rose to the level of requiring T&S action.
And you know this how?

User avatar
Kumioko
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: The Kumioko Review

Post by Kumioko » Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:23 pm

The End wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Yeah and not one of those are from Arbcom. Those were all from the WMF trust & safety section.

Now in fairness, most of these were just low level vandals and trolls. Very few rose to the level of requiring T&S action. It's just T&S doing something to make them look relevent.


Also, those were not "important" editors with the right social and political connections with the WP community. No one's going to go to bat for them and risk banning.

Exactly, the T&S section can ban a few people, for some smaller communities and with no arbcom to use as a quick "win" to show they have value. This will, IMO, get more aggressive. They'll continue to do this and grow the list and eventually assert themselves back on the ENWP community once they have reestablished themselves and their authority.
#BbbGate

User avatar
Kumioko
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by Kumioko » Sat Jan 11, 2020 9:22 am

JuiceBeetle wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:24 am
Abd wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:21 pm
In any case, that content is hidden without any apparent justification on the privacy issues [...]
As I remember one of the trustees - maybe Zoloft - made a comment that Vigilant's screeching is getting embarrassing for the forum and maybe the interaction between the two forums should be limited or the topic made non-public. I can't find it now, maybe it was deleted (hmm...) or I just dreamed it. Anyway, that embarrassment is also a reason to hide it, not to say that it also limits the defamation factor, as guests and search engines don't see it now.

I think this is a step in the right direction, although, the appropriate mod action would be to tell Vigilant to act like a grown-up person and stop raging. He's losing all his credibility, however, with 20k comments the mods still allow him to harass whomever he wants...
Not that I could criticize them for that, I have allowed Crow to keep on with his raging as well just for the occasional interesting post he wrote.
Vigilant is part of the reason Zoloft blocked me from posting. Big can say anything he wants, any way he wants and about anyone he wants and Zoloft won't do anything. Of course the other reason he blocked me was to support my WMF ban now that he's made WPO a safe space for Wikipedia admins and arbs.
#BbbGate

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by Abd » Sat Jan 11, 2020 5:57 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 9:22 am
Vigilant is part of the reason Zoloft blocked me from posting. Big can say anything he wants, any way he wants and about anyone he wants and Zoloft won't do anything. Of course the other reason he blocked me was to support my WMF ban now that he's made WPO a safe space for Wikipedia admins and arbs.
Personally, I suggest avoiding mindreading unless evidence is strong. There is an obvious reason why Vigilant ("Big") has always been enabled since before I was banned from WPO in 2014. His content is entertaining. As to your ban, the obvious reason would not exactly be Vig, it would be how you responded to him, which was similar here. I could look at the WPO history. Okay, I did, shallowly, but I do see enough to have a rebuttable opinion. Your posts there (visible only to registered members). Your last posts (also member-only).
Zoloft commented there, Sep 15, 2019 9:24 am:
Kumioko wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
As you wish.
Kumioko wrote:
I mean obviously I don't "want" that. But since I knew it was coming I thought I would ask for a mute rather than a full ban.

Personally I would have preferred this site continue to be for critics of the WMF projects, but if it's not going to be that anymore and critics are just going to be ridiculed, I don't know what value I can add here.
Well, goodbye.
When you were on-topic, your posts were pretty good.
But you never quit wallowing in self-pity.
That was him indulging as well in a bit of mind-reading, though it could also be considered social reality. I.e., what you were doing looked like that -- I'll agree --, and my stand is that I am responsible not only for my own actions, but also the reactions of others to me. You were warned here about your responses to Vig. You were not blocked (more than for a short time) because you did not continue it. You did continue the attitude, though, and complained bitterly about Crow not being banned. Even after he was banned.

Crow was very much like Vigilant. Vigilant was correct about you in certain ways, it appears to me, but the quality that sets him off is hatred, expressing what I'll call arrogant hated is the quality that stands out.

You have a strong personal reaction to "being ridiculed." (If I'm incorrect about that, correct me!) WPO (and Wikipedia Review before it) have always been WP editor and functionary friendly. But, of course, they might be ridiculed, and certainly Vigilant does plenty of that, and routinely. You may criticize WP and WPO and Zoloft and Vigilant here, but if it creates the appearance in question, and if it floods the forum, you may be warned. You will not be blocked without warning, so I suggest avoiding immediately reaction, other than stopping what you are warned about.

However, what Zoloft wrote was not ridicule. It was a reasonably accurate description of how your writing appeared, and still appears, including this present post. Instead of the obvious reason -- right or wrong -- you invent a reason, and how that appears to me is that you prefer to find a way to blame them, to claim that the deck was stacked against you because you are a critic and they don't really want critics.

Which is patently false, and which is based on blaming them for the consequences of your own behavior.

And again, that is not "ridicule." It's very, very common, very human. And devastating to actually taking responsibility for life and for results, which is required for power.

User avatar
Kumioko
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by Kumioko » Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:04 pm

It's funny. I made a short comment and you posted another wall of text. Maybe if I spent 30 minutes writing a novel on every simple comment....oh nevermind, you get the point. See, took just a few words and you understood.

Btw, the reason I haven't actively been posting is because the new site skin is awful (I know theres nothing that can be done) and also partially because you and juicy are the mods. It's like the site owners are trying to kill the venue.
#BbbGate

User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Sucks Mod
Posts: 665
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by JuiceBeetle » Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:17 pm

First, I'd like to thank you for not posting repetitive nonsense for a long time. The forum felt more focused without it.
Kumioko wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:04 pm
Btw, the reason I haven't actively been posting is because the new site skin is awful
There's always a reason, isn't it? Before Crow's ban, he was the reason, now the skin? Wtf? Do you expect people to take this bollocks seriously? It seems you do.
Kumioko wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:04 pm
and also partially because you and juicy are the mods.
These mods limited and censored your bully Crow's harassment towards you and banned him after a long struggle to convince him to focus on content, not harassment. This is what you requested and you are still complaining. No further comment from me.
Kumioko wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:04 pm
(I know theres nothing that can be done)
Other than uploading a skin, which takes a few minutes, but so far there were no complaints regarding the skin. Unfortunately, it seems what you know has nothing to do with reality.
Kumioko wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:04 pm
I made a short comment and you posted another wall of text.
While Abd's posts address topics related to, but not part of the original post, he actually has something of value to say. Maybe show some respect by taking the effort to think about the points he make. Could change your life for the better.
Kumioko wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:04 pm
Maybe if I spent 30 minutes writing a novel on every simple comment
Whereas I think that would really challenge your mind, I'd point out to you that there is no correlation between the length of a post and it's value. If you find reading a half-page post tedious, don't blame the author, but your attention span instead.

Mod note: as this discussion is off-topic in regards to the WPO TOS, I'll move it to the Kumioko topic soon, starting with Kumioko's post that - as usual - dragged his various bans into this discussion. While Vig's role - as part of your ban - is understood, YOUR part is understood as well and we feel no remorse. Furthermore, the TOS has nothing to do with it in any sense.
#Bbbgate

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by Abd » Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:41 pm

"Wall of text" is the refrain of those who hate evidence and reasonable discussion. A very brief post can raise many related issues, and sometimes a direct lie can take a few words, and covering and showing the truth can take many more.

Here, Kumioko shows his alliance in reality with the enemies of open critique and rational discussion. He essentially agrees with Vigilant on his snark about length -- that is very important to discussion fora.

Beginning over twenty years ago, I identified the problem and wrote about it. So, yes, I have something to say, but to ignore what I say takes no time at all. It is not like we are in a space where only one person can talk at a time.

The trolls and haters capitalize on a common reaction to "walls of text," which has a very specific meaning, ignored here. That was not a wall of text, it was formatted to keep it from being that, and it was far from a "novel." Again, exaggerated polemic is characteristic of trolls . . . and whiners as well.

Because these people are critics in at least one sense, they have been tolerated. Those who are skilled at creating flame wars that are entertaining have even been protected, because they create more page views and activity.

The critical community has no unifying purpose. I used to call Wikipedia Review the neighborhood pub, where parties went to get drunk and rail at each other. But these sites did and still do have utility aside from that.

However, most people hate whining. In fact, that is why children whine! Parents really want it to stop, so, and especially if they are unskilled as parents -- and most start out with no experience! -- they will give in, so kids learn to whine to get what they want. It works with parents, sometimes, and it even works in some other contexts, later in life. And humans often don't notice when behaviors stop working and will continue them long after it has become visible as ineffective.

This site had come to be dominated by Crow and Graaf Statler, the former generating content of some value, mixed with liberal doses of hatred and flames. Graaf was mostly incoherent, and prolific with it. And Kumioko, under attack from Crow, refused to moderate his responses, to be patient with site moderation and he attacked the active moderator.

It is a reality that the number of people participating here has declined with the bans of Crow and Statler; those bans were made absolutely necessary by the open defiance of moderators and site administration. That's rule number one on any site: respect the owner and the owner's appointees, or your account is likely to be toast, unless they want to keep you around for target practice, to feed the dogs, and please the screaming mob.

If warned that you will be blocked if you continue an activity, expect that you will be blocked if you continue, and take responsibility for the result. At the present time, Kumioko is not under a warning. If he floods the site with what I consider harmful to it, I will warn him, and discussion will be possible.

I have committed, as a mod, not to block anyone without a violated warning, other than from gross and obvious necessity.

I am also privately accessible on the Wiki Tree House Discord Server (Invitation), and if anyone believes that someone has been unfairly treated here, PM here if you have an account, PM on the Server if not -- or blocked, I'm happy to read complaints. Kumioko will not be warned -- or at least not by me -- merely for criticizing me or for defending himself from critique or attack (even if he seems to have difficulty distinguishing between the two).

Both Crow and Statler increased their defiance when warned, and so were banned. They could still be unbanned, but it might involve some, ah, reprogramming.

Kumioko was short-blocked and did not continue the behavior. From what I see of him on the Discord Server, though, that's not because he has decided to be cooperative and useful, it is because he has given up, as he gave up on Wikipediocracy. There are much more powerful responses possible, but I see no sign that he's interested. He prefers to be a victim forever, it appears. (Unless, of course, the 'pedians straighten out and fly right, and, of course, unban the incredibly valuable contributor, Kumioko/Reguyla.)

Defining one's own life and purposes and activities based on others, so that you can blame them for wasting your own time, is a very Bad Idea.

Some people will burn out appeal channels. We create our life and we also create how the world responds to us.

User avatar
Carrite
Sucks Critic
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:59 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by Carrite » Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:21 am

Abd wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:41 pm
It is a reality that the number of people participating here has declined with the bans of Crow and Statler; since you became the chattering tinpot dictator...
FIFY.

t

User avatar
Kumioko
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by Kumioko » Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:05 am

See that's another reason why I don't post here. Anything I post is insulted, moved to a "Kumioko" topic, so there is no point in wasting my time posting here. My opinions aren't wanted being that of a banned editor. Why would I invest my time in a site that is modded by people who don't like me, my opinions or my presence? What do you think this is? Wikipedia!
#BbbGate

Post Reply