How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by Abd » Sat Jan 25, 2020 5:12 pm

For the record, I have seen speculation quoted by Vigilant on Reddit that "boredbird has also disappeared, after an altercation with Abd, over pedophilia of all things." and he added, "Abd was advocating for pedos." This was blatant lying, and obviously based on this thread. That kind of lying is what I confronted on Wikipediocracy way back, and it appears to be why I was banned. He was and remains their favorite troll. Boredbird is not a troll AFAIK.

Bored bird was not warned, he asked a question, and it was discussed, and there was a general consensus. The question was not about pedophilia, as such, but about blocking doxxing of pedophiles -- which, in real life, has led to murders. And the conclusion was that it would be considered case-by-case, but nobody would be blocked without a violated warning. So if boredbird considered it useful, he could still dox a pedophile. We would leave it or move it to a private forum. He might -- or might not -- be warned by a mod if we feel we need to move it. And this is all standard moderation, nothing really special.

Boredbird also did not disappear. He has posted 4 times in the 39 days since that discussion.His last on the 19th, quite a decent post, thanked by the two active mods. That is one post every 10 days, an increase over his long-term average of 0.07 posts per day. And what this shows is that some with an agenda will speculate based on nothing at all, which is then quoted by a troll, interpreted as if factual.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by Abd » Sat Jan 25, 2020 5:31 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:49 pm
I'll be honest here. I couldn't care less about doxing Wikipediots. I would live to confirm the identities of Fram, Bbb23 and several others. After they tried to get me fired from my job, I have Zero sympathy. So I say if someone identifies a pedophile who is editing, go for it.
What I notice is that this expresses hatred for all editors, it is not focused on those who attacked him. If Kumioko were to focus on what happened, factually, with evidence if possible, it would be very welcome and on-topic for the site. (His personal testimony from knowledge is evidence -- i.e., it's better if it is verifiable, but "testimony is presumed true unless controverted" is basic law -- it would be quite welcome and very much on topic. Whining may not be.

There is a distinct difference between factual reporting and whining, even though trolls will call reporting "whining" by assuming "tone of voice." I am very interested in what happened, and the emotional response is obvious and not particularly interesting. Some expression of it is normal, instinctive and even functional, but after years? In any case, nothing from Kumioko is automatically moved to his special topic, and any such move may be appealed, mods may or may not agree. By attacking the mods here (for the crime of "insufficient protection from abuse"), though he was actually protected overall, with disagreement possible over whether it was quick enough or not), he may have created some prejudice. Welcome to human society. It helps to understand how it works.

Post Reply