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

How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by Abd » Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:17 pm

[edit: the title here could be misleading, while the WPO action may have had that effect, that was not the purpose of my ban there, see ensuing comments.]

Recently it's been claimed (on Wikipediocracy) that (1) I destroyed the Wil Sinclair project, Offwiki, and was community banned there, and (2) when I whined about it on Wikipediocracy, they booted me. Or something like that.
This is, to say the least, counterfactual. My last post on Wikipediocracy was in a thread I had started May 14, 2014, The stewards are in control. This was a factual review, and evidence showed how stewards were suppressing simple documentation of their actions, apparently to protect one of them from being visible for his abuses. One of the stewards responded usefully. My last post there was Jun 15, 2014, and that was my last post on WPO. My account there says "retired." In fact, I was banned. I could no longer log in or see my PMs. There was no warning or notice to the public.

I was still active on OffWiki 24 July, 2014 as can be seen by the archived "community ban discussion."

People told themselves stories, invented interpretations, and as is very human and very common, remember their own interpretations more than what actually happened. They are not lying, necessarily (Vigilant might be), but rather deluded. There are other commentaries from that time, that were, at the time (like that archive), evidenced, and the evidence has mostly disappeared. In my view, allowing a community project to vanish is a betrayal of the community, and it's happened many times, demonstrating how some critics are irresponsible themselves.

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 Dec 14, 2019 11:00 pm

We expect unmitigated garbage from Vigilant on Wikipediocracy. In response to the above, though, Midsize Jake, admin there, demonstrates exactly what disables and disempowers Wikipedia criticism. Here it is, but that's a member-only Forum, so I'm copying it elsewhere. I also don't want to debate trolls here, so detailed commentary will be elsewhere as well. Enjoy.

(Yes, the proximate cause of my ban from Wikipediocracy was not the steward issue, but had to do with quite what Midsize Jake states, and that is how I remembered it, it was about witch-hunting alleged pedophiles on Wikipedia, and mostly about Vigilant, "Witchsmeller pursuivant," resident hater. Keeping people like that around corrupts everything.)

(The public copy of the Wikipediocracy comments is annotated on hypothes.is, which is open and others may annotate as well.

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Mod
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 635 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by boredbird » Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:55 am

So your ban from Wikipediocracy was about pedophilia. You said in another thread that on offwiki.org you were confronting doxers. If I dox pedophiles will you block me?

User avatar
Carrite
Sucks Critic
Posts: 376
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:59 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by Carrite » Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:29 am

boredbird wrote:So your ban from Wikipediocracy was about pedophilia. You said in another thread that on offwiki.org you were confronting doxers. If I dox pedophiles will you block me?


He will block you in a car,
He will block you with a jar,
He will block you, tight or loose,
He will block you with a moose,
He will block you Vogon style,
Then lay out reasons by the mile.
Describing in detail, pages long,
While whistling a happy song,
Just so you know that he's the boss,
That you're gone, and it's no loss.
Mind you, he'll block you without hate,
(Then he'll go home and masturbate!)
He wants applause, demands respect,
But let me be more circumspect:
Power corrupts some absolutely,
And narcissists? Most resolutely!
One's now king for a short bit,
Until all the peons up and quit.
It's been seen before, the end is clear,
This site is doomed, go have a beer.
Though some may have memories short,
Not one Mister Davenport.

Fare thee well. See you at WPO.

I'm out.

tim
Post 344 — 2.11% of all site posts.

P.S. Kissy kissy, Eric — I love you, too!

User avatar
Kumioko
Sucks Mod
Posts: 860
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 177 times

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by Kumioko » Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:02 pm

Well, Vigilant is the reason I got banned on WPO. Zoloft kicked me because I stood up to vigilant. Vigilant must have co promising photos of Zoloft editing in his underwear or something to get the sort of support he has.
#BbbGate

User avatar
Kumioko
Sucks Mod
Posts: 860
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 177 times

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by Kumioko » Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:04 pm

As for and being a mod here. If the site owners want to make sure this forum dies, then they are on track to do that with Abd and Aron as mods.
Last edited by Kumioko on Wed Dec 18, 2019 3:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
#BbbGate

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 » Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:39 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:04 pm
As for and being a mod here. If the site owners want to make sure this forum does, then they are on track to do that with Abd and Aron as mods.
Does what? Obviously, the path to success for any forum or wiki is to allow Kumoiko to do whatever he pleases. The WMF guaranteed failure by office-banning him and by reverting his excellent contributions as if vandalism. They are doomed!

I'm not sure what success means here. Success is having lots of activity with people trashing each other? That seems to be the standard on Wikipediocracy: its all about the lulz, about taking pleasure in watching others trash each other and themselves.

Ah, the fools! If only the world were like me, never wrong, always wise and thoughtful, and not like those fucking idiots!!!

They don't care about reality, about truth, about honesty and care and actual history and have no track record of success themselves. It's like Poetlister's tag line. 'nuff said.

One of the benefits of being a mod is I get to shut up and act instead of explain. One action is worth a thousand words. But what actions? What is all the flak based on? Not my problem. See ya 'round, I'm busy setting up wikitop.cc, pulling together a team. Fun.

Trolls must show ID.

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 » Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:20 pm

boredbird wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:55 am
So your ban from Wikipediocracy was about pedophilia. You said in another thread that on offwiki.org you were confronting doxers. If I dox pedophiles will you block me?
The Offwiki story was complex. I don't recall all the details, but it looks like there was a user on offwiki using the forum to dox his enemies, and I may have confronted it.

My ban from Wikipediocracy was apparently about my confrontation of claims there that certain Wikipedia users were pedophiles or pedophile apologists, which can be defamation.

In any case, on this forum there is an explicit no-doxxing rule, and so the question here really is, "If I violate rules here, will you block me?"

If I feel like it.

Volunteer moderators have no obligation to act. What I would likely do, though, is to delete the doxxing and warn you. And if you violate the warning, then I assume I would block. And is there anything surprising or odd about that?

There can be exceptions to any rule, but that does not mean that there is no rule. Moderators have been trusted by site owners to act for site welfare, and may use discretion; this is all standard and only seems odd to some because they are used to Wikipedia, which pretended that the community was the sovereign, but never took steps to ensure that the community had a coherent voice. So . . . endless argument to decide what "community consensus" was on something. There are far simpler ways we worked out over centuries.

User avatar
Kumioko
Sucks Mod
Posts: 860
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 177 times

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by Kumioko » Wed Dec 18, 2019 3:32 am

Sorry I fixed it, it should have been "Dies", not "Does"
#BbbGate

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Mod
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 635 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: How Wikipediocracy suppressed study of steward actions

Post by boredbird » Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:38 am

Abd wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:20 pm
boredbird wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:55 am
So your ban from Wikipediocracy was about pedophilia. You said in another thread that on offwiki.org you were confronting doxers. If I dox pedophiles will you block me?
In any case, on this forum there is an explicit no-doxxing rule, and so the question here really is, "If I violate rules here, will you block me?"
If I feel like it.
So yes, if someone doxes pedophiles you will block them…starting to get a feel for where your Wikipediocracy ban was coming from…

There is no rule here against doxing. Check my thread I am a bored bird. It's why I'm here. That's how this bird does criticism. Site owners seemed fine with it. Maybe you're confusing Sucks with your and JuiceBeetle's rules on Discord.

Post Reply