View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:01 am




Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Abd banned from the WMF projects 
Author Message
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 997
Reply with quote
IMO Wikiversity is almost a "dead" project anyway.....less than 10 people are generating ALL the recent changes.


Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:59 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm
Posts: 31
Reply with quote
Mutineer wrote:
By the page views, this is one of our most popular threads. I dunno why. Maybe it's Abd refreshing it constantly.

Yea, Abd the attention whore.

(I only occasionally look at this page, not even every day, so if views are high, I don't think it's me!)

Look, this is actually a major story, buried in insignificant details. (It is possible this will end up being covered in the media, but there is Stuff that must happen first.)

Or, rather, to get the story, one needs to see a lot of evidence, and Wikipedia is terrible at arranging that -- they hate actual documentation -- and social media fora like this can be not a hell of a lot better. I was banned on Wikipediocracy, some years ago, without warning. Why?

Just as mysterious as the San Fran Ban. Critics, too often, replicate what they criticize.

Thanks for reading! Let me bask a bit more in the spotlight. It's snowing here and it feels warm.

Meanwhile, there are massive attacks on me all over the internet, coming from the Smiths, aided and abetted, it's becoming obvious, by David Gerard who prefers, but fails, to keep his involvement invisible. The San Fran Ban was apparently arranged through a coordinated filing of complaints from a handful of users, canvassed by the Smith brothers from the antifringe faction. I can imagine, but don't know what they actually wrote.


Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:58 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:01 pm
Posts: 167
Reply with quote
Quote:
Or, rather, to get the story, one needs to see a lot of evidence, and Wikipedia is terrible at arranging that -- they hate actual documentation -- and social media fora like this can be not a hell of a lot better.


It's not the software alone, a lot of it is rules of presentation of evidence (500 words max at AE for example). I think you can use mediawiki to organize evidence quite simply and as thoroughly as need be. Of course you can do the same with any text editor. Have you centralized your story somewhere?

Quote:
I was banned on Wikipediocracy, some years ago, without warning. Why?


See, here a link to a memorable thread would have been really handy...


Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:58 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1089
Reply with quote
Abd wrote:
I was banned on Wikipediocracy, some years ago, without warning. Why?
It could be because the place is overrun with Wikipedians with their Wikipedian understandings of what constitutes harassment and disruption, so there tends to be lots of, shall we say, synergy, in their thinking.

It could also be your verbosity. Again, there is an overlap there with the mindset of the Wikipedian - just as it's not seen as insulting or disrespectful to say "TL;DR [insert reply here anyway] on Wikipedia, you will find a lot of that on Wikipediocracy too. Having to read lots of words hurts their tiny little brains. They're busy people, got shit to do, y'know?

It was most likely a combination of the two. I doubt there was any other reason really. Don't go looking for complexity in their thinking, it isn't that kind of place.

For the record, Zoloft did say something nice about you in your ban thread there - "Abd had a long career as a critic of the WMF. He's a banned member here. Not all the interactions were unpleasant. He is a man of some intellect and strongly-held convictions.". Not that it matters, his two faced nature means you can put little value in such things, least of all a belief he will treat you fairly or with respect. He's done the same to me.

It isn't surprising that one of the last times you were mentioned there, it was Suarez lamenting you were not. Zoloft of course jumped on that to speculate he might be alone in that opinion. Which was immediately contradicted by Kumioko also agreeing that you were missed. He did not respond further.

For explanations of why people are banned, why people are not banned, why someone gets away with something while someone else does not, you need not look much further for explanations than what does Zoloft thinks..and he thinks your intellect and experience as a long time critic, wouldn't be missed on a Wikipedia criticism site.

His thinking is guided by this warped idea that the cult can be reasoned with, that Wikipedia can somehow be fixed, that Wikipedians should feel welcome and accepted on a critic site (a privelage they of course then go on to abuse, just as they do in Wikipedia). And last but by no means least, that it is sufficient to merely show when a Wikipedian is a liar with the evidence, there doesn't need to be any other action or reaction, least of all recognition on their part that they lied, much less an apology.

Accordingly, thanks to Zoloft and the culture he sets down, the Wikipedians run riot, getting away with pretty much all the classic defensive/evasive/retaliatory behaviours that are a feature of the average Wikipedia 'debate'. Thus if you're not that sort of person, Zoloft expects you to willingly debase yourself as the price of entry. He expect you to be fine with being taken for a fool, and just live with it, like a little bitch. Oh, and if you could write him a blog lost or two, that's brilliant as well. Unsurprisingly, his blog is dead.

He has for a while been suspected of leveraging his position as the only one who did any administrative work there, to bully the other stakeholders into going along with with wishes. Hence if he grew to dislike you, or was getting grief from Wikipedians who disliked you, or you were otherwise causing ructions by not lying down and accepting Wikipedian behaviour on a so called Wikipedia criticism site, he'll have deemed you disruptive to the harmony of the site, and binned you.


Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:00 am
Profile
Modsquad
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:11 am
Posts: 130
Reply with quote
Quote:
"Abd had a long career as a critic of the WMF. He's a banned member here. Not all the interactions were unpleasant. He is a man of some intellect and strongly-held convictions."


Zoloft's chief characteristic is pomposity. I mean how dare he judge a person like that. He should quit Wikipediocracy and go take up up residence at WP:AN/ANI.

"But how can we help Wikipedia" said Zoloft, basically, in his suspenders and belt.

_________________
I am "Modsquad" here, and participate, but I don't want you to think we can't have an angry argument.


Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:17 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm
Posts: 31
Reply with quote
sashi wrote:
Quote:
Or, rather, to get the story, one needs to see a lot of evidence, and Wikipedia is terrible at arranging that -- they hate actual documentation -- and social media fora like this can be not a hell of a lot better.

It's not the software alone, a lot of it is rules of presentation of evidence (500 words max at AE for example). I think you can use mediawiki to organize evidence quite simply and as thoroughly as need be. Of course you can do the same with any text editor. Have you centralized your story somewhere?
The problem is not the software, but the community habits and reactivity. I did organize evidence on Wikipedia, before ArbComm, using hypertext. As a result, that evidence was deleted, though an MfD filed to suppress it and most of my Wikipedia studies. As to centralizing, not enough, perhaps, I got busy with other things, and I have actually just now hidden much of what I've written, because ... if you are going to shoot the King, don't miss. What I have uncovered is larger than occasional admin dysfunction. What it takes to get someone WMF banned with no TOS violations is also what it takes to get web sites taken down, etc., and ... these people have done that, many times!
Quote:
Quote:
I was banned on Wikipediocracy, some years ago, without warning. Why?

See, here a link to a memorable thread would have been really handy...

Sure, except I DGAF and the ban was not announced. The whole point is that it was private, not announced, not violated warnings from admins, etc.


Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:19 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm
Posts: 31
Reply with quote
Mutineer wrote:
Quote:
"Abd had a long career as a critic of the WMF. He's a banned member here. Not all the interactions were unpleasant. He is a man of some intellect and strongly-held convictions."


Zoloft's chief characteristic is pomposity. I mean how dare he judge a person like that. He should quit Wikipediocracy and go take up up residence at WP:AN/ANI.

"But how can we help Wikipedia" said Zoloft, basically, in his suspenders and belt.

Where did he write that? A link would be nice! I don't find that comment offensive, even though it's ... ah .... incorrect. I am *assertive* as to what I know (i.e., evidence) and conclude (opinions or judgments), but I know the difference, and, in theory at least, opinions are not "strongly held," but I don't sit down and shut up merely because some asshole -- or even some nice person -- disagrees. I actually want everyone to do that, and that is how I'm trained.

Try to tell me that I'm lying about what I've seen, I may get a little testy. And that is what the Anglo Pyramidologist socks have done (i.e., those of Oliver and Darryl Smith, and there are some signs of another brother, believe it or not -- I don't believe it yet, but signs are ... signs, not proof), and a few others who repeat what they have claimed, for, I'm sure, their own reasons.

There is a common assumption on wikis. If one documents behavior that can be seen as reprehensible, the one documenting must hate the object of documentation. After all, isn't hatred what would motivate one to do that work. That, indeed, might be a reasonable assumption in many case. But not in all. That assumption rules mobs, which themselves hate readily.


Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:06 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 779
Reply with quote
Abd wrote:
Try to tell me that I'm lying about what I've seen, I may get a little testy.


It is not about if you are lying or not. I'm a complete unknown Dutch artisan, did not one edit wrong, but criticize Dutch wikpedians, that was all. Because they were lying, trolling, corrupt and breaking the Dutch copyright law. It's a pity it is in Dutch but on my blog you can find many, many evidences of that. But THEY were protected, first by the Meta stewards, and later by WMF with a SanFanBan. Again, the evidences for what I am claming you can find with links on my blog and you can find a explanation in (broken) English here. It is pure slander and defamation, but that is the way they work. They don't need lies, they need rumours, that's enough for them to SanFanBan someone.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:01 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 997
Reply with quote
Graaf Statler wrote:
It is not about if you are lying or not. I'm a complete unknown Dutch artisan, did not one edit wrong, but criticize Dutch wikpedians, that was all. Because they were lying, trolling, corrupt and breaking the Dutch copyright law. It's a pity it is in Dutch but on my blog you can find many, many evidences of that. But THEY were protected, first by the Meta stewards, and later by WMF with a SanFanBan. Again, the evidences for what I am claming you can find with links on my blog and you can find a explanation in (broken) English here. It is pure slander and defamation, but that is the way they work. They don't need lies, they need rumours, that's enough for them to SanFanBan someone.

Ask this guy about Google defamation:
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechcon ... rom-google


Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:13 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 779
Reply with quote
ericbarbour wrote:
Ask this guy about Google defamation:
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechcon ... rom-google

Yep, but look at this phrase:

"But in Europe, it's a different world. In response to new privacy rules imposed by the EU, Google has buried more than 1 million pages on that continent because the subjects of those pages say that the content is unreliable or simply too personal. In the U.S., no such "right to be forgotten" exists."

And that is true, Europe is a different (legal) world. And that huge (legal) iceberg in Europe is also situated for them. The new privacy rule, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). And ask Google what happens if you are violating European regulation. And why do you think Mark Zuckerberg was advocating in the European parlement a few day's ago? And the article is right, In Europe, he would have just filled out a form, that was enough. Did you know you can do that in your one language, and you can get help by your local office of the EU? But I am sure the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU is working hard to solve all the legal problems. The have still one mouth. O. yeh, sure they will.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:43 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.