View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:48 am




Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
A SanFanBan, the algorithm beater 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3500
Reply with quote
What is the real goal of a SanFanBan and when is it the ultimate slander and defamation? And why did WMF hire a top lawyer? I will tell you.

Wikipedia is a algoritm platform. When you have a article on Wikipedia, you are someone even if you are just a music teacher how is pimped to a famous composer. Why was the Jullia Reda shitstorm on twitter by the leaders of wikipedia? Because there algorithm status is extreme high, from Jimmy in particular. Wikipedia is the standard of the world in algorithms.

BUT, what is the oposite? Why was Vig doxxing and stating a topic the list of users banned by WMF? To fuck the algoritme. To connect my "bad reputation" to relatives of me. To smear the rest of my family too. Because, if the standard of this world, WMF, Wikipedia put you on that list, well, you must be one of the worst people in this world! Because that is the signal the algoritme will pick up. Just like they have picked up Jimmy Crap is a important person, you need him as a adviser, as a keynote speaker.

And that is the slander and defamation and the reason why only a few people are on that list. But, the problem for them is I and my family is are so extreem integer that they will find.....nothing. Really nothing. And they are in general pensioners, dentists, artist, jobs where you don't need a high "wiki-algorithm status". And they are all the same fuck yourself and fuck of or you can get a letter of my lawyer types like I am. And, because Wikipedia is based on bluff without a plan B they are complete powerless. And that is what is going on.

Because there is simple no reputation to destroy with powerful algorithms of someone without social media, no info on the internet who is very honest and admire this only succesfull education was one yer kindergaten and the rest was a catastrophe. Or how is just telling himself he has lived as a drugs and alcohol using hippy for years in squats. Because that is the true! There is simple nothing to destroy for them because there is nothing, not even one professional highlight in my life! And if I should be declared complete mad, what should it hurt me? Nothing, real nothing. Go ahead and say what you want if it makes you happy, I don't care. Just fuck yourself with your shitty algorithms. They only have a attic, a keyboard, Commons porn, a tremendous overwicht, and a big mouth, a mental defect, and that is all, it is just a bunch of arrogant losers and shitcans and nothing else!

_________________
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


Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:32 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm
Posts: 248
Reply with quote
There are two harms from the ban, one negative and one position. The negative harm is that the ban prevents the user from openly accessing the Wikipedia interface with the banned account. It is clear that the owner of Wikipedia has the right to do this, and absent an agreement or legal principle to the contrary, they can do it without cause, for whatever reason, it is not illegal and probably not actionable -- though the full extent of this has never been tested.

The positive harm comes from the publication, the announcement of the ban. Unless the intention is to punish -- which means to cause harm -- there is no necessity for publication; that the Foundation has implemented office bans using the crude global lock tool is a choice they made, merely convenient for them. And this opens the door for abuse, by those whose goal is actually to defame the user.

The community, through the community ban process, banned very few users, rather each wiki was autonomous. The community process required certain precedent conditions that were difficult to meet. As well, even the community process had as serious flaw: it overrode the independence of the individual wikis, not allowing them to decide differently than a "consensus" of users on meta. When this started, wikis had a means of "opting out" of a ban by disconnecting the account from the global account. That was removed, by removing account renaming from the power of local bureaucrats.

Fascism grows, one "reasonable" step at a time, one small loss of freedom and autonomy.

The WMF Health and Safety Office almost certainly believes it is protecting users, but it is also possible that it is simply grandstanding, because a global ban actually protects users from very little. It was alleged that I harassed a certain user by email. I didn't, but we had extensive email communication directly, not through the WMF interface, so how was that user protected by the ban? I wasn't going to use the interface anyway!

(But I never harassed him, and this points to the hazard of a star chamber process. It can be manipulated to target enemies. I emailed him to help him, and warn him about the trolls trying to stir him up, but it gave him the power to assert harassment (and the WMF could not directly verify the mails, and it is entirely possible that someone *did* harass him, the trolls that were after me did stuff like that, impersonations.) But since I was provided no information about the cause for the ban, I can't tell what actually happened.)

It makes some sense that they would keep complaints private, and to safely address possible abuse would take some sophistication of process that seems beyond them. But what would a sane and legal process do?

Well, first of all, if they decide to ban someone, if it was an emergency, they would use developer access to change the password, which would not show up in the global account log. If it was not an emergency, and if the user has email enabled, they would notify the user that they are banned, i.e., prohibited from using the WMF interface and that if they do use it without permission -- except as explicitly allowed -- they would be involuntarily locked out. They would do this in a way that could later be reversed. And this is even if they keep bans "unappealable." It would do the user no positive harm, it could not be used, as my ban was intended and used, widely, for defamation.

I cannot force them to do this, and they would not even communicate with me until I filed the lawsuit. But I can claim damages from the defamation. I can anticipate how they might respond, but my guess is that, in the end, their current ban practice will become a thing of the past, and they will lift all locks for current office bans and replace them with password change, if not also with some sane appeal process.

(I found a page on how to change the password of a user in MediaWiki, it requires shell access, i.e, a Developer. This might work even with the lock in place. Bottom line, this is trivial, easy to do, and would do no harm, merely shut down the user's access. But email should be disabled, that's the one complication to be noticed, or else the user could recover access. The Office could make all this one-button, simple.)

Since they did go ahead and publish, and that has been up for well over a year, I was harmed, and as part of this, I have the right to discover the process they went through, and if I was defamed in the private complaints. Courts know how to handle privacy concerns, there can be discovery that is confidential, Attorney Eyes Only. A judge will hear arguments and look at the material and decide what kind of protection is needed.

Meanwhile, the trolls are still attacking. I'm not going to write about it at this point, because I prefer to see how situations develop. They are watching everything I do, and often respond quickly and massively. For example, here is a subreddit page about Oliver D. Smith. It sat without comment for two weeks. I found it and commented and *immediately* they attacked, with many socks, and eventually flooding the subreddit with spam. Basically, they are on-line fascists, suppressing critical comment by attempting to bury it in noise. Fun guys, eh?


Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:58 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3500
Reply with quote
Although you find me hardly on the internet is that true, they follow you anywhere and attach you constante. We have seen that with Vigilant on Wikipediocrazy, yesterday it happend again one Dysk his Discord. They think they have a richt to get private info, they are above anything and are obsessed by sock puppets what you should have. Someone who is declared to a wiki enemy is a fox hunting object for ever. They bother you where they can, in your mailbox, on fora because they must have there right. They can't stop to smear your name and even of your relatives as we have seen.
The Foundation has created indeed online fascists in this way, I got even orders to shut up. Special because there was not any need to ban me at all and for sure not to put my name on that strange list.

In my case it is clear WMF has used that ban because I was standing in there way with there Julia Reda and Romaine shitstorm in the Europarliament. And still these guys are trying to do the same, trying to get private date. Trying to call me, trying to find out the relation with my lawyer. But that is confidential what they simple don't accept.

Wikipedia is dangerous and has not one benefit, in the sea with it!

_________________
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 May 01, 2019 12:18 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4178
Reply with quote
Their reason for publishing the list seems pretty obvious - if they didn't, they would have to do all the work of preventing banned users from continuing to access the site all by themselves. That then merely exposes the flaw of not publishing more specific details, such as who or what is supposedly being protected or prevented by the ban, for the benefit of the mug volunteers expected to be on alert for signs of a breach.

The legal status of the ban is very questionable. It is probably correct they need no reason, but yet again, this merely calls into question their decision to administer the bans the way they do. Why publish a list of possible reasons, if the banned person and the volunteer watchmen aren't allowed to know what they did, much less apppeal?

The process is entirely at odds with how Wikipedia manages all its other means of denying access, and all of those are supposedly given legal force by specific parts of the ToU, with the specific reasons expected to be given, and appealeable, because it is obvious that in a system that is run largely by amateur pseudonymous volunteers, with oversight run along the same lines, mistakes or worse, can and will be made.

It begs the question, why do the WMF even make it possible for the two processes to be intermixed, making speculation inevitable? The obvious inference to make this a legitimate and defensible process, and I think they have even claimed this, is that the entire process of enacting a Global Ban is conducted in house, by paid WMF staff, identifiable people responsible for their actions to the Board and the law. At all stages, they collect the evidence, assess it, and act on it, entirely independently of any bullshit done by pseudonyms with questionable motives. If that is the case, it again begs the question, why do they keep this all secret?

If this case reveals these facts - the actual legal owners of Wikipedia can and do ban people for any reason they like, including no reason at all, and they keep the reasons (or lack thereof) secret, both from those being banned and those mug volunteers they are expecting to keep them out, then this will massively damage the cult. The subsequent PR hit will affect recruitment and fund raising, particularly given how it contrasts with the other social media sites, who are still getting dogs abuse despite doing it in a far more transparent and responsible way. Tommy Robinson certainly knows why he has been excluded.

I can and I have previously pointed out that nobody really knows if the reason Kumioko got banned was because he tried to groom child users. He got pretty mad, to the point of threatening to take down, and perhaps even succeeding in taking down, another critic forum. Ironically that was an example of a service provider (ProBoards) denying service, and then hiding behind a ToU with an 'any reason' clause to give no reason other than they can ban for any reason (which logically includes, no reason).

The clear difference between that case and Wikipedia, which you might find useful Abd, is that at least in their case their lawyers presumably thought it prudent to instruct the management that in the cases when this happens, you do actually need to respond to a complaint with the minimal information that the ban has been invoked under the specific ToU 'no/any reason' clause. It was a form letter, their policy evidently being to not engage in any further communications than that.

But legally speaking, it was communicated, privately, from the identified provider, to the identified user, invoking the specific ToU clause supposedly giving it legal force. They did that, even though I think in their case, much of the management layer is also drawn from unpaid volunteers. It was also pretty clearly communicated that the reason this could not be appealed or discussed, was precisely because it was being done as a 'no/any reason' act. No sense appealing if the reason you got ejected was your face simply didn't fit.

To some extent also, the existence of the ban was also 'published' in the form of a blackout message invoking the same ToU clause. But in contrast to Wikipedia's list of shame, there is no way for anyone without privelaged access, to link the existence of this ban to a former service user, pseudonym or otherwise.


Wed May 01, 2019 1:40 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3500
Reply with quote
Good analyse, Crow.

Quote:
But legally speaking, it was communicated, privately, from the identified provider, to the identified user, invoking the specific ToU clause supposedly giving it legal force. They did that, even though I think in their case, much of the management layer is also drawn from unpaid volunteers. It was also pretty clearly communicated that the reason this could not be appealed or discussed, was precisely because it was being done as a 'no/any reason' act. No sense appealing if the reason you got ejected was your face simply didn't fit.


It makes once again clear why there legal team is complete rubbish and has not even has a clou what the purpose of a ToU is. ToU is regulation, not a shield I-can-be-as mad-as-I-want, and-look, here-are-my-terms-of-use. It is not a top hat from which you can conjure a rabbit.

A ToU edited by complete amateurs and translated in other languages without any respect for local regulation, it is complete rubbish A ToU in the best tradition of Wikipedia. We are governing this world, we are the once who make the rules, in short the normal wiki arrogance. And that was the reason I said there is no plan B, because behind a wall of bluf and arrogance you find a complete empty shell, a legal house of cards.

I was literally that little boy with as only successful education one year kindergarten and who is still playing with trains and clay and paint who said after a few day's spending on Wikipedia, he guy's, that emperor is complete naked and who instated he was naked because I simple knew I was right! From the first moment on. For the simple reason you can't give away what is not yours, what is the base of the whole wiki sand castle. Giving things away what are not yours.

Wonder how this end up, but I am afraid not even the most smart lawyer in this world can do anything for them. Again for a simple reason, he is not Jezus. Because maybe Jezus managed it to change water into wine, but he can't, that is for sure!

_________________
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 May 01, 2019 4:02 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm
Posts: 248
Reply with quote
Graaf Statler wrote:
Although you find me hardly on the internet is that true, they follow you anywhere and attach you constante. We have seen that with Vigilant on Wikipediocrazy, yesterday it happend again one Dysk his Discord.

Graaf, this is useless without a link.


Thu May 02, 2019 2:50 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3500
Reply with quote
Not for the people who follow and WO and Dysk his Discord. Vig is for weeks busy now, and I made a copy of Dysk his Discord here on sucks.

Discord:
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =22&t=1200

WO:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... =8&t=10300
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... &start=100
And one hidden with doxxing and privacy of Vigilant.

They will never let anyone go. Never! Glad they can't find anything important about me, it is all crap. But imagine there is something what really can hurt you with these sick minded persons, that would be a disaster! That Vig fool even try to hurt me with a confidential medical rapport I am 100% mental healthy, and in the same rapport is written I am a decent gentleman, neatly cared with a much higher than normal intelligence.
Well, that is something you can publish in the newspaper about yourself. (Is written there, isn't it Vintroll. But that is not what you mention, total jerk what you are! Never emptying shitcan!) He does this only to get "my" algorithm down, but it is useless. Because I am complete immune for algoritmes because my real life is outside computers.
But imagine it is something negative! And you have a reputation to lose! Because that is what they are using in the same way against you!

_________________
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 May 02, 2019 3:42 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 7 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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.