Abd wrote:Something is broken in Graaf's world, and I don't know what it is, but it makes him paranoid and often unintelligible.
Well, the paranoia is understandable - to most people who are new to the wikiverse, it is simply too unlikely that so many supposedly different people would say the same dumb shit for apparently the same reasons, and not be socks or meatpuppets. Hopefully he will come to realize the truth, and the tendency to see socks everywhere will stop. And really who is to say at least some of the time, he is right? We've all seen crazy unbelievable shit, you of all people know that.
Yes, and it was my position that Graaf's apparent "insanity" was a product of language differences. No. It is not. Something else is going on.
What often makes him unintelligible, is merely the fact he is not a native English speaker. If you step back, it is quite easy to extract what he really means. If not, you can just ask.
CrowsNest, I've been watching many, many conversations involving Graaf. As I've written there is some depth there, and what is deep is often rejected, but there is also actual paranoia, and that it might be "understandable" doesn't change that at all.
Anyone who invited Graaf to a venue, and then bans him for being paranoid and unintelligible, really only has to answer one question - are they fit to even be moderating an online venue? They cannot in all seriousness not have known what he is like, and decided in advance whether they could deal, or not.
It appears that they thought that the situation was as you are suggesting, it was merely an language problem. Further, the discord server is private. They own it. He was not banned because he was unintelligible, that's your fantasy. He was banned for the same reason that anyone is ejected from a meeting with a process chair, for refusing to shut up when asked by someone with authority, for insisting on repeating hostile questions and demands, with which he ended up irritating *everyone* including people he had regarded as friends and who had been friends for him.
They not only believed they could deal with it, they did deal with it for a long time. I banned Graaf at one point because, again, of hostile, disruptive behavior. That was explicitly temporary. This last ban is quite different. It was obviously total consensus. Now, to propose that the owners of the server were unfit, because they gave someone an opportunity to participate, to express himself and be heard, and it didn't work, would be to propose that such people must know the future, know what is possible or not. It would require omniscience. You are, here, making an argument that they might have made, and it is somewhat how I thought.
Similarly, anyone who doesn't know (or cannot find out) want his fued with Bart is all about, probably isn't spending enough time in the places Wikipedia critics need to read regularly, and thus cannot in all seriousness effectively moderate a Wikipedia related venue.
The venue is a Wikipediocracy Discord. The owners are RatWiki sysops, Dysklyver is a tech there. If there is a history there worth exploring, and you seem to think you understand it, and it is of significance, why don't you write about it? What I saw from Graaf, looking back at that conversation cited on WPO, was extreme hostility. At the end on the server, leading to his ban, he was telling everyone to fuck off. Everyone. So he was banned, he was essentially demanding it. And then he lied about it here. Sorry, CrowsNest, you are losing credibility.
I echo the statements of confusion about why Discord is even being used for Wikipedia criticism. As I understood it, it is simply a fancier IRC, and it is not public. That can only fuel people's paranoia.
It was totally transparent to Graaf. He was a moderator until the last hour. He could see all the logs. It's not public, but it's quite open. You could surely join if you cared. It is owned by Dysklyver, who has some serious gravitas, amazing for his age. It tolerated Oliver Smith and Michael Coombs for a time, but neither one was willing to treat the community with any respect, it was all attack. And, it might be noticed, I'm a Mod there. But wait, aren't Dysk and the other Kerensa sysops on RatWiki? Shouldn't we be enemies?
No. We shouldn't. That's all affiliational bullshit.
People have two clear choices in my mind, they can either post at Wikipediocracy, or here.
Well, in the immortal and legally precise language of Arkell v. Pressdram . . .
Assuming setting up their own site is not an option.
Because Crow's Nest says so? You must believe the State Religion, or you must be an Atheist. Otherwise you are doubly heretical, to be banned everywhere.
The two are sufficiently different in philosophy, culture and aims, that if they still see issues with both fora that make them feel like posting in a non-public chat room is more beneficial activity, I'm confident they could not hold their own, if they were ever called upon to defend their criticism.
Obviously, I participate here, but I find the company of very young, very bright Rats more appealing. I don't really follow all the traffic here, there is too much noise. Consider that. (I also don't follow WPO for the same reason, I only look at certain topics because, after all, I am in federal court with the WMF.)
Where are The Devil's Advocate and Probivouac, for example?
That you don't see TDA's activity does not indicate that he's inactive. Perhaps you might consider joining that Discord server. I'll PM you an invite. Disclose who you are and you will be approved, I believe, and I'll make it so.
The had plenty to say for themselves on the now departed Review III, and this venue would be the logical place for them to have decamped. But they would rather just disappear into the ether, if they aren't mucking around on Discord and nobody has told us. It leads me to question their motives, what they were really in this activity for.
Major lack of AGF. Common to many critics, and one of the reasons why criticism so often fails to accomplish much of anything. Dysklyver participates here and on WPO.
There is also the very public WikiInAction subreddit. Wikipedia is a beacon of civil discourse and positivity