WMF bans more frequently than ever before.

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2168
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 277 times

Re: King kong92: A failed comeback

Post by ericbarbour » Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:57 am

CMAwatch wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 7:49 pm
King kong92 registered in 2006, at the age of 14, thus somewhat immature.
They lasted 4 years on Wikipedia (with intermittent inactivities) until an indefinite block.
Back then, in the 2000s (a.k.a. Wikipedia's Monobook years), sock puppeteering was not yet punished with indefinite blocks.
Nine years later, they decided to try a comeback.
Discussion here.
They were free for around 1 month, boasted about being a proud Wikipedian since 2006, but then the blue bear hunter catched them (see bottom of that page).
This looks like one of MuZemike's idiot "I will destroy this person for no reason" tricks. He did this hundreds of time to people like KK92--I do NOT see any problems with any of the listed accounts. They did worthwhile content work and I see no evidence of squabbling or vandalism.

Fuck You, Michael W. Pruden. (He outed himself on a WMF mailing list in 2009.)

User avatar
Strelnikov
Sucks Admin
Posts: 735
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 138 times
Been thanked: 55 times

Re: King kong92: A failed comeback

Post by Strelnikov » Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:28 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:57 am
CMAwatch wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 7:49 pm
King kong92 registered in 2006, at the age of 14, thus somewhat immature.
They lasted 4 years on Wikipedia (with intermittent inactivities) until an indefinite block.
Back then, in the 2000s (a.k.a. Wikipedia's Monobook years), sock puppeteering was not yet punished with indefinite blocks.
Nine years later, they decided to try a comeback.
Discussion here.
They were free for around 1 month, boasted about being a proud Wikipedian since 2006, but then the blue bear hunter catched them (see bottom of that page).
This looks like one of MuZemike's idiot "I will destroy this person for no reason" tricks. He did this hundreds of time to people like KK92--I do NOT see any problems with any of the listed accounts. They did worthwhile content work and I see no evidence of squabbling or vandalism.

Fuck You, Michael W. Pruden. (He outed himself on a WMF mailing list in 2009.)
By doing these things they make it harder for new people to show up and they seal the doom of Wikipedia in the long run.....if they actually gave a toss about Wikipedia. The most powerful users seem to be involved only for the drama they can create. This is why I keep talking about kicking out all users, hiring real editors, cleaning the place up and locking it, with updates ever six months. OR we can have en.Wikipedia,Alpha (the clean and "perfect" one with the editors) and en.Wikipedia.Beta (the site as it is) and let the userbase choose what they want.
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2168
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 277 times

Re: King kong92: A failed comeback

Post by ericbarbour » Tue Oct 27, 2020 3:15 am

Strelnikov wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:28 pm
The most powerful users seem to be involved only for the drama they can create. This is why I keep talking about kicking out all users, hiring real editors, cleaning the place up and locking it, with updates ever six months. OR we can have en.Wikipedia,Alpha (the clean and "perfect" one with the editors) and en.Wikipedia.Beta (the site as it is) and let the userbase choose what they want.
None of which will ever happen. Too many complete bastards reached adminship and used WP as a stupid FPS game. Even a total purge of the admin rolls wouldn't get rid of the sockpuppet accounts most of them keep ready, so they can RFA each other and maintain power. It's basically Pinochet-era Chile reduced to a website.

Speaking of which, today the Chileans voted to dump the old Pinochet constitution ( it was very Napoleonic, guilty till proven innocent, inequality under the law, the president is inerrant etc. ) in favor of something more modern and equitable. For weeks prior there were violent protests and chaos--things were BAD. Yet it was barely mentioned in the news media today. What I do see is endless Amy Coney Barrett this and that.....

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/26/92785927 ... start-over

User avatar
Strelnikov
Sucks Admin
Posts: 735
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 138 times
Been thanked: 55 times

Re: King kong92: A failed comeback

Post by Strelnikov » Tue Oct 27, 2020 11:00 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 3:15 am
Strelnikov wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:28 pm
The most powerful users seem to be involved only for the drama they can create. This is why I keep talking about kicking out all users, hiring real editors, cleaning the place up and locking it, with updates ever six months. OR we can have en.Wikipedia,Alpha (the clean and "perfect" one with the editors) and en.Wikipedia.Beta (the site as it is) and let the userbase choose what they want.
None of which will ever happen. Too many complete bastards reached adminship and used WP as a stupid FPS game. Even a total purge of the admin rolls wouldn't get rid of the sockpuppet accounts most of them keep ready, so they can RFA each other and maintain power. It's basically Pinochet-era Chile reduced to a website.

Speaking of which, today the Chileans voted to dump the old Pinochet constitution ( it was very Napoleonic, guilty till proven innocent, inequality under the law, the president is inerrant etc. ) in favor of something more modern and equitable. For weeks prior there were violent protests and chaos--things were BAD. Yet it was barely mentioned in the news media today. What I do see is endless Amy Coney Barrett this and that.....

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/26/92785927 ... start-over
Two responses:

1. Then Wikipedia is doomed, because it cannot change with how the Internet is changing. You had a chart. Mr. Barbour, of how the number of Wikipedians was falling and I think the bottom-out point was either in 2022 or in 2019. That it still trundles on is a minor miracle. Any of my ideas would have to be approved by the WMF, NOT the gang of admin idiots that thinks it has power over en.Wikipedia. Somebody has to stand up and tell these dysfunctional, Wikipedia-addicted people that they are screwing themselves up alongside the site they claim to love (and I know that the Wikimedia Foundation is watching this messageboard.)

2. American culture (or at least the institutional part of it) never seems to give a Damn about what America does to the world, and the Pinochet constitution of Chile is the product of the "minds" of Henry Kissenger and his flunkies in the State Department, plus Milton Friedman and his goons from the world of American "libertarianism" (they stole that from the European anarchists.) It was a corporate document written for a quasi-fascist government talking orders from the farthest-Right in power inside the United States (various corporations doing business inside Chile, the GOP, the Chicago School of Economics, etc.) That Chile is free of El General's piece of paper is a step forward for freedom in the Americas.

The newspapers/electronic media squeal about Amy Coney Barrett because they think Roe v. Wade is done. If you aren't lucky to live in a coastal state, Roe v. Wade was done anyway because abortion clinic bombings, abortion doctor shootings, the GOP war on Planned Parenthood, etc. has removed clinics from the South and large parts of the Midwest, last I checked. If the election comes down to the Supreme Court, that will be her first major use to the Elephant Party, because she will vote for Trump. If Biden wins, he will be pressured to expand the number of Supreme Court justices. He punted this question on 60 Minutes two nights ago*, but if you check the Constitution, there is no set number of Justices, it's been as little as five and as large as ten but nine was decided in 1869. So this "rule" is just a tradition. We live in extraordinary times and if it takes twenty Justices, so be it. Also they need ten or fifteen-year terms, not lifetime appointments. This Baffler article on getting rid of the Senate also covers the Supremes and junking the antique Electoral College: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/abolish-t ... -geoghegan
________________

* Biden said he wants to set up some bipartisan committee to look into it, which is just bullshit. READ THE CONSTITUTION, JOE!

Thomas Geoghegan's argument for the TL;DRs out there is that the Senate is built to oppose "one man, one vote" and that by going unicameral the government would be more democratic. He also wants to give Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. residents the ability to vote. Actually I'm not doing his article justice, just read it TL;DRs!
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2168
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 277 times

Re: King kong92: A failed comeback

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Oct 30, 2020 12:58 am

Strelnikov wrote:
Tue Oct 27, 2020 11:00 pm
1. Then Wikipedia is doomed, because it cannot change with how the Internet is changing. You had a chart. Mr. Barbour, of how the number of Wikipedians was falling and I think the bottom-out point was either in 2022 or in 2019. That it still trundles on is a minor miracle.
Ah, you must mean THESE charts. I posted them in a private area on Wikipediocracy in 2013/14, and am quite sure that Burns or someone else shared them with Wikipedia insiders. Who thence went on a crusade to make new admins and encourage editing. The results have been "mixed" so far. (and MY reward was to lose my WPO moderator powers in 2015.)
ActiveAdmins-est-decline-small.png
ActiveAdmins-est-decline-small.png (72.22 KiB) Viewed 164 times
adminpromotionremovalchartfinal.png
adminpromotionremovalchartfinal.png (58.38 KiB) Viewed 164 times
est_final_decline_editing(EB2014)small.png
est_final_decline_editing(EB2014)small.png (113.34 KiB) Viewed 164 times

User avatar
Strelnikov
Sucks Admin
Posts: 735
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 138 times
Been thanked: 55 times

Re: WMF bans more frequently than ever before.

Post by Strelnikov » Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:57 am

Thank you for posting those, and DAMN I was way off with when the ghost-town would begin in Jimbo's Jungle. So we have slightly less than a decade for the final collapse of en.Wikipedia. If it happens.

Also screw Wee Billy Burns and the rest of the Wikipediocracy crew remaining. It's the one thing i hate the most about Wiki-criticism sites are how frikkin' clannish they are.....there's a lot of childish nonsense going on, most of it petty and emotional.
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2168
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 277 times

Re: WMF bans more frequently than ever before.

Post by ericbarbour » Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:58 am

Strelnikov wrote:
Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:57 am
Also screw Wee Billy Burns and the rest of the Wikipediocracy crew remaining. It's the one thing i hate the most about Wiki-criticism sites are how frikkin' clannish they are.....there's a lot of childish nonsense going on, most of it petty and emotional.
Also remember that NO ONE ELSE was preparing charts like this. The few times anyone on WP DID post such a chart, they were attacked and abused. By 2010 the insiders could no longer pretend that the editing statistics were declining, so on tables like this....they simply stopped updating most of the figures.

And they finally killed that table off completely at the end of 2018. It was replaced with this prettier page....which does not show the editing and administrator declines clearly.

Poke in a little further and you find this. Looks like one of my charts, except for the lack of a "tail". (In all these charts, that peak in early 2007 occurred just before the Essjay scandal. As I've said over and over, that was when Wikipedia's "golden age" ended and it became a standing joke. That was also when the vandalism patrollers and deletionists gained the upper hand.)

I suspect that they have hidden the edit decline, partly by "diddling figures", and partly by encouraging automated edits and counting them as "human" edits. Or perhaps they are simply lying and publishing bogus figures now. Since they will NOT admit anything and will NOT discuss it openly with outsiders, we do not know the real truth.

Or look at this chart, difficult to find for anyone not clued into the "scene". RFAs boomed between 2003 and 2010-2011, then died out. Again: they won't discuss it with outsiders. And you can't find ANY charts showing how many administrators are actually seriously active, because large numbers of the remainders are doing the absolute minimum work needed to avoid being kicked. Lots of them have clearly been kicked since 2011, usually for inactivity. But the general trend has been down since 2011. The number of bureaucrats has also been slowly declining.

Show this crap to a journalist. Chances are 99+% that you will be ignored.

Post Reply