View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:43 pm




Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Wikipediocracy blog post on the Framban conspiracy 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4182
Reply with quote
Hey Timmy. How many dollars are you going to donate to a cat charity, for each day this blog post never sees the light of day?

We don't want to bankrupt you, so I suggest $0.01


Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:10 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:20 am
Posts: 281
Reply with quote
Vigilant Enjoys Another Busy Day at Work

Let's examine how Vigilant spent Wednesday September 11.

Thread: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year
Vigilant posts at .....

1. 12.06 am
2. 12.36 am
3. 12.42 am
4. 12.53 am
5. 1.18 am
6. 2.42 am
7. 2.55 am
8. 3.07 am
9. 4.32 m
10. 4.40 am
11. 2.56 pm
12. 7.16 pm
13. 7.19 pm
14. 8.19 pm
15. 8.24 pm
16. 11.26 pm
17. 11.29 pm
18. 11.43 pm

Thread: Laura in Wikiland
Vigilant posts at .....

19. 5.27 pm
20. 8.55 pm
21. 9.32 pm
22. 9.42 pm
23. 10.10 pm
24. 10.19 pm
25. 10.31 pm
26. 10.42 pm
27. 10.48 pm
28. 10.51 pm
29. 10.53 pm
30. 10.56 pm
31. 10.59 pm
32. 11.11 pm
33. 11.16 pm

Conclusion
Vigilant has obviously been busy at work and has managed to control his obsession with WPO and Laura Hale. The gentleman is well on the path to recovery!


Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:34 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4182
Reply with quote
It would be a tough job for someone to even write a daily digest of his ramblings, much less fact check it and try to reconcile all the plot holes. You wouldn't believe it, but he's capable of that last issue even in his daily output.


Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:08 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4182
Reply with quote
:roll:
Vigilant@Wikipediocracy wrote:
So, here at the end of time, we see that the case is all about Laura Hale and her undisclosed, paid, conflict-of-interest editing while being protected by multiple wiki insiders, the Chair of the board, a trust and safety member and a member of ARBCOM.

Would FramGate have even happened if this information had been known at the outset?

Conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice would be the charge for the complainants if this were a court of law.


You fuckers owe Fram a massive apology.
You owe people a blog post.

No way in hell can you expect readers to wade through 100 pages of garbage to determine if these accusations are true, or even defensible.

No way in hell can you plausibly act like you think these are true, but decline the opportunity to present such an explosive scandal in a format easily digested by outsiders, and most importantly, by the media.

You can hand the task off to some other chump if you want, but there's clearly no good reason why you would do so. You clearly want to be seen as the primary author, and you're clearly in the best position to know where you even have to begin the Herculean task of standing this bullshit up.

The only plausible reason you want to hand it off, with your "blessings", is you're too chicken to actually put your name on it, to expose yourself to the inevitable howls of laughter and massive lawsuit.

You're the guy who has got a massive boner just because the Foundation decided to use expensive lawyers to fight off Abd's entirely reasonable request to know why he was banned, or have it removed from the public record. So we all know you know that if the media prints these allegations, the defamed parties are going to go nuclear on whoever the media identities as the source. These are career ending allegations, make no mistake.

As we already know, the only mentions of the foundational stone of this conspiracy theory that have appeared in the media so far, have been attributed as the unverified claims of a bunch of randoms at some place called Wikipediocracy. And even that mere basic factual claim, is supposedly easily verified through public records, according to CSI:Fuckwit. The media knows nothing said in those threads can be trusted, they know they have a defensible claim that if the shit hits the fan, they were deliberately misled into reporting libel.

I'm fine with people bravely putting their head above the parapet for the cause. But under no circumstances should you do so just to take the bullet that is rightly intended for this slimy little coward.

This isn't a game. This is about ruining people's lives. You better believe the stakes are high.

There is obviously a part of me that even wants this potential blog post to be the thing that ultimately destroys Wikipediocracy, an outcome that would mean the cause of serious and credible Wikipedia criticism would be immensely strengthened. But that place has a habit of making innocent and ill-informed people carry the can for their ill intent.

If Vigilant won't write it, it has to be either a work of their nominated anonymous coward CornPoke McGilliguddy (although I think since he was since later claimed by Zoloft, it would actually have to be one of their infamous pieces that is literally by-lined as "Anonymous Coward"), meaning the whole site gets torpedoed. If not, it has to be one of the other scum, an Eagle or Jbhunley, someone absolutely deserving of a shit sandwich for their breakfast, lunch and dinner. I can virtually guarantee whose names won't be on it, and if you don't know who they are, you probably shouldn't even be considering taking on the task.

Let nobody forget, Vigilant believes anyone sued after making these claims, would win, because truth is an absolute defence. That's true cowardice right there, not even prepared to stand behind what he insists is the absolute truth.

Say nothing if you agree with the entirety of this post, Vigilant.

HTD.


Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:32 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4182
Reply with quote
Seriously, what the actual fuck?
Vigilant@Wikipediocracy wrote:
Maria Sefidari Huici KNEW FOR A FACT that the case against Fram was built on lies, corruption and nepotism and she said nothing.
Maria Sefidari Huici has a fiduciary duty to the Wikimedia Foundation as an officer not to lie by omission about material facts in a case that could engender a legal liability onto the WMF.


Someone needs to talk to the board and legal at this point.
WMF should get outside counsel to review this situation.

Corrupt.
As.
Fuck.
The only person who needs a lawyer, is the Wikipediocracy domain owner, assuming Vigilant maintains his anonymity if they ever received a cease and desist.

It's clear and obvious what his game is. He doesn't want this finding its way into a blog post, because none of this garbage is intended for the media or the wider public. He knows that if it remains in the limited circulation of Wikipediocracy and its readers (the media stopped reading years ago), there's no chance the Foundation would give them the gift of publicity by taking action against their usual unhinged fare. So he doesn't have to change his underwear twice a day, and he gets to watch as assorted miscreants (and when he gets desperate, his own obvious socks), spread this conspiracy around the movement, to see what breaks. And for the adulation of simpletons, of course. Can't forget that aspect of the V man's core insecurities. The One-Eyed King that he is.

I have no doubt it's a HTD strategy some have considered ethical, and maybe even participated in, but it doesn't float my boat. Only an absolutely incompetent critic finds themselves with so little to say that is actually truthful, that they have to start making shit up, trying to literally destroy innocent people, just to achieve the HTD objectives. And only an absolutely evil person deliberately chooses to bolster the scummy aims and objectives of the volunteer Wikipedia horde, as a way to try and topple the Foundation. None of it makes sense as the strategic plan conceived by an independent and impartial critic, so when it is revealed the person doing it probably spent years in therapy using a doll to show the doctor exactly where the Foundation touched him, you get to understand this is someone you don't want any part in helping, not even for HTD.

I'm half tempted to write the blog post for them, a simple synopsis of all these claims and what Vigilant thinks backs them up, submit it to Jake, and dare him to publish it, under his own name, given he long ago stated he is a believer in the conspiracy theory. If he doesn't, well, we'll then know why he let it go on so long too, as the only person there with the power and responsibility to prevent valid criticism becoming defamatory woo.

Like Vigilant, I expect Jake too never really wanted a blog post to come out of it, he only ever wanted to host this garbage as their usual forum pigswill, because his true loyalties and strategic goals are in perfect harmony with the scummy Wikipedia horde. They love a bit of swill. Lap it up, and then puke it all over their sleeping quarters. Their only target is the Foundation, all of Wikipedia's faults are then supposedly fixable once their evil presence, and their volunteer acolytes, are removed. Which is of course no surprise, because that's what makes up the vast majority of his membership, if not every single last one of them.

The true HTD strategy here would be to eliminate the Foundation and then watch the Wikipedia lifeboat holed under the waterline as the volunteers take each other out in a series of increasingly more vicious loyalty trials. But we can see this is not their strategy. Not even close. They have been nurturing and supporting unreconstructed assholes like Black Kite, Dennis Brown and Beeblebrox, not for their future potential agents of their own destruction, but because they like them! Jake is on record, he actually respects these people, actually wants to hear what they say, values their opinions. Never has taken it back, and never will. Worse, he has protected them from real critics. Unforgivable.

Wikipediocracy was hollowed out and captured years ago. They've probably got Zoloft out back, drugged up to his eyeballs, still convinced he's in charge, told his big tent strategy was a resounding success, their reform goals well under way.

What is dead can never die.

But you can cut their balls off and make them watch as you rape their sister-cousin.

My kind of strategy. :twisted:

H.T.D.


Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:27 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4182
Reply with quote
Eagle apparently said this on Wikipediocracy in 2014.....
Quote:
LauraHale does not have much of a reputation for honesty or logic.
So it seems pretty obvious all the claims this is about due process and other high minded issues triggered by recent tumultuous events, is horseshit.

If it looks like a personal fued, if it smells like a personal feud, it probably was a long standing personal feud.

Poor Fram has had so many people climbing on his back for a free ride, he must be bent over double now.

What an awkward time for Vigilant to have raised the issue of clean hands. Ooopsie!

But hey, I'm sure we'll be given full disclosure in any potential blog post, right Jake?

:lol:


Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:28 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4182
Reply with quote
Jake wrote:
That's the problem here - this just stretches credulity too far past the limit. What's more, if you ask me, only a die-hard, fanatical Wikipedian would be an apologist for that. Only a true koolaid-drinking believer would think it was "okay."
Put your money where your mouth is, chump.

I've not seen you say anything about this nonsense that I don't already have an answer for, locked and loaded. This latest post included, it being merely a lazy rehash of what was being said on Wikipedia months ago.

When are you going to put your head above the parapet by going on the record with a blog post with a comprehensive summary of your beliefs and a denunciation of the disbeleivers, so it can be shot clean off?

I've given you every opportunity to address my rebuttals to your assorted forum posts as and when they were posted. It stretches credulity that you have not seen them.

You've got no answers. You have no case. Only the religious fervour of a death cult.

You just refuse to die.

Drink the Kool-Aid already. Seal your doom.

:twisted:


Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4182
Reply with quote
:lol:
Jake wrote:
Agreed, but all I'm really saying is that for this part of it at least, the line about "aggressive grant seeking without disclosing the paid work" maybe should be changed to "aggressive grant-seeking while disguising the paid work as part of a now-formalized 'residence' program that was almost completely informal and unmanaged at the time."
Jake wrote:
WikiNews was started in 2004-05, wasn't it? So let's please clarify this - are we saying WikiNews was completely taken over by Laura Hale at some point, or resurrected from complete abandonment by Laura Hale, or juyst that she just used it as a way to get a free press credential, like most of the other WikiNews "reporters" use it for? Or what...?
To echo the Wikipediots' criticism of the Arb Case, doesn't this part usually come before the other part?

Better yet, to quote your own Timmy and Kiefer's attempted criticism of the Arb Case, THIS IS SOME LEWIS CARROLL SHIT RIGHT HERE.

You don't have shit. You don't know what you don't know, because you never were interested in the facts, this never was an investigation.

YOU'RE FUCKING AMATEURS.

A blog post would reveal it.

Who, what, where, when, why.

As always, your chief goal here seems merely to be flattery of the Wikipedians through imitation.


Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:13 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4182
Reply with quote
:lol:
Vigilant wrote:
The more Silk Tork reveals of the Trust and Safety dossier, the more apparent it becomes that the primary complaints revolve around Laura Hale and that the rest of the document is window dressing to obfuscate the underlying issue.
Or to put it another way, the more proof that is provided that the dossier isn't Laura, Laura, Laura, the stupider you look insisting she is the primary subject of it.

I mean, you said this garbage a whole twelve hours after SilkTork had literally said there are "over a dozen" people named in the report as Fram's victims. Full sections are devoted to the interactions, with Fram's POV in each and every case given full recognition.

That's a whole bunch of window dressing.

Did you even have the first clue Fram had that many enemies? Be honest. You keep asking, who is X, who is Y, people who have been active in the last few years know all about. So it seems reasonable to assume your knowledge of Fram wasn't exactly ....current.... when you embarked on this literal witch hunt.

Up to date critics could see from a long way out, people weren't naming everyone Fram had beef with. It's been entirely forgotten he was in a feud with Fae in his last month of freedom. Shit, he apparently named eight possibles himself, so you automatically double it to get the real number, obviously.

I'm sure at one point the nutjobs were adamant it was only about Laura. Now the above. Pretty soon I'm sure the narrative will be altered again, so as to admit the dossier is largely not about Laura, but that's only because they wanted to obscure their real purposes. This is how conspiracy whackjobs roll, they just keep changing the story, do whatever they need to do, to keep maintaining Hilary was indeed slapping those kid's bare bottoms with her sauce stained boobies.

When are you going to admit, the increasingly poorly named "Vigilant", that you don't have shit?

Publish, or be damned. Or rather, laughed at. Because this long passed the point where it would have been conceded by mainstream skeptics that, even after putting aside all the other major questions, if someone in Unimatrix Zero really wanted to ban Fram for and on behalf of Laura, he was that much of a cunt it could have been achieved without mentioning her name in the dossier at all.

You took a punt, it hasn't panned out. Just cut your losses. You can maybe salvage 1% of your dignity by now.

Not you though Jake, you're so fucked. I mean, the reputation of Wikipediocracy was already in the toilet, but I don't think anyone who is serious about criticism wants to be associated with the place that has produced 100+ posts on this daft shit. If they do, well, I'll just beat them over the head with it until they come to their senses. You're toxic now.

I did warn you.

8-)


Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:12 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4182
Reply with quote
Vigilant wrote:
Damn. It doesn't get any clearer than this.

Someone should have some very uncomfortable questions for the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation.
See, you can probably say this a couple of times, and people might take you seriously. Say it a hundred times, and people wonder why you're doing nothing about it.

Admittedly there is very little an anonymous coward can do, but one of the options is to write a blog post, unless Jake has lost his bottle.

It can't be that hard, surely. Take a look, it's not like their previous output has had to be either very long or very well written.

Your keyboard does have a working "?", for all those questions you want put out there.....


Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:17 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users 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.