Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by Abd » Thu Jan 02, 2020 7:30 pm

It is offensive to block access to content that is of direct concern to a person. For a long time, Wikipediocracy has hosted extensive and very personal attacks on people who are banned, so they can't see it. Recently, Graaf Statler was apparently prohibited from posting on WPO, but was allowed to be merely muted, and he did just post (harmlessly, to be sure, with a nice New Years' greeting). it is a mark of respect for the general community to respect people, and if they post offensively, to warn them and to take minimal action as needed to maintain public order. Like Wikipedia, the WPO community does not know the middle ground, but dismisses people as trolls or useless garbage all too easily. This software allows private warnings.

I very much doubt that Strelnikov would be a disruptive user, needing little more than warning, if that.

Here on Sucks, at least of late, we have only banned for egregious disregard of moderation warnings. We are not going to ban anyone merely for criticizing us. After all, we are Critics and don't Critics Suck? But . . . if someone begins to flood the Forum with personal attack or other garbage, and persists in spite of warning, yes, we will ban. For minor cases, a short block, I expect, that's been recent practice.

User avatar
Stanistani
Sucks
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:35 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by Stanistani » Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:56 am

Strelnikov wrote:
Thu Jan 02, 2020 7:16 pm
Stanistani wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:39 pm
Strelnikov wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:07 pm
Stanistani, aka Wee Billy Burns..... I tried to sneak in again to WO-MB as Yustas, which is another Seventeen Moments of Spring reference. Either delete it or let me back in.
Your sarcasm is obscuring the meaning of your request. Just tell me, without snark, what you want. I don't usually handle new user registration activations. That's almost always Midsize Jake. Why would you even want back in?
My IP is blocked by your board. I occasionally get links to things written on WO, but I can't look at them directly.
PM me on this board the IP you're using, and I'll take it off the block list if it's on there. Bluehost may have its own list of problematic IPs, so this may not work. I only populated the list on our domain with spammers and attackers. A lot of TOR nodes and such ended up on there and I have often removed them when requested.
That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by Abd » Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:21 pm

On the issue of member-only posts on Wikipediocracy.

There was recent discussion on WPO of Sucks, which began with and continued as mostly a diatribe about me. I placed some links to it here. Threads do not prominently display "Member only, do not copy elsewhere." However, I am under the impression that I checked and this was not member-only content, and, since it now is, it was moved.

I could be incorrect on that and I would check this, if I could, but I have no way.

In any case, that content is hidden without any apparent justification on the privacy issues that were cited here. Using privacy this way, to allow defamation, is offensive, and I am disinclined to respect it, particularly as I may not respond there. So I have archived that topic here: https://wikitop.cc/w/User:Abd/Wikipedio ... this_point

(Wikitop users may post anything relevant to wiki criticism in their user space, and content will not be deleted without warning and opportunity to recover. Users are responsible for what is in their user space, and will be supported by administration as if they had admin rights there. To obtain an account on Wikitop, PM me here or on reddit.)

User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Sucks Mod
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by JuiceBeetle » Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:24 am

Abd wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:21 pm
In any case, that content is hidden without any apparent justification on the privacy issues [...]
As I remember one of the trustees - maybe Zoloft - made a comment that Vigilant's screeching is getting embarrassing for the forum and maybe the interaction between the two forums should be limited or the topic made non-public. I can't find it now, maybe it was deleted (hmm...) or I just dreamed it. Anyway, that embarrassment is also a reason to hide it, not to say that it also limits the defamation factor, as guests and search engines don't see it now.

I think this is a step in the right direction, although, the appropriate mod action would be to tell Vigilant to act like a grown-up person and stop raging. He's losing all his credibility, however, with 20k comments the mods still allow him to harass whomever he wants...
Not that I could criticize them for that, I have allowed Crow to keep on with his raging as well just for the occasional interesting post he wrote.
#Bbbgate

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by Abd » Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:12 pm

Possibly this: Post by Midsize Jake » Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:04 pm If you could read this before without being logged in, and cannot read it now, that shows that they hid the embarrassing thread.
This is what Somey wrote:
I'm guessing there's probably a How To Moderate a Web Forum textbook somewhere that says, "when cross-posted sniping with people on other forums gets personal and then gives way to obscure math jokes, it's probably time to consider locking the thread."
There is more relevant comment, from RfB
One of the dumbest trolling topics in Wikipediocracy history merged with one of the geekiest math nerd sub-thread topics ever.
Ya gotta love it, mods, it is what makes this site great.
That is surely how they think. Once upon a time, Wikipedia Criticism sites included "constructive criticism," intended to improve Wikipedia as well as to support those bashed by toxic admins -- or a toxic community. But toxic trolls can be entertaining! And "wiki" is biased toward entertainment and quick snappy comment and action without ever considering, you know, evidence. Evidence is boring, wall of text, just give me the point!

And there goes the wiki and there goes the forum and I first saw this in the 1980s. Nobody cared about what had really happened, and if one pointed to history, it was assumed to be polemic on one side of a flame war. Rather what was important was who was better at making snarky comments and arguing for what I believe. Very few people would look (and this played out on Wikipedia when I compiled JzG's editing history wrt cold fusion. (And at that point, it would have been radically unfair to call me a "believer in cold fusion." I was working for project neutrality, period, that was my interest.)

And that's the story of social media, in general. Just the way it is, except that if we all buy that approach, the planet is doomed.

As to math nerdiness, what was left to the reader was probably more likely "evaluate sqrt(-1)^sqrt(-1)" But we could assume that it means "show the evaluation," and to make any sense, one needs to know the context, i.e., what is necessary. In this case, to keep it simple, we might use Euler's identity, e^(iπ)=-1, where e is Euler's number and i is defined as the square root of -1. That is the basis for "imaginary numbers," long story. So the "exercise" is to evaluate i^i. The answer given is only one possible answer, there are others. And I will leave the rest as an exercise for the reader, who is welcome to leave as an exercise, just as anyone is welcome not to read anything I write, but some will, nevertheless, complain at length about the length. I will say that if that single answer were given in a class at Cal Tech, the student might get a C or maybe even a B, but not an A.

Vigilant, on WPO, used to respond to detailed posts of mine with tl;dr. Who cares what a troll has not read? Or even a non-troll, the vast majority of the human population has not read any given text. Only Vigilant would do it at the end of quoting the entire thing. Troll. He has not changed, as clearly shown by this sequence, starting with his rants on Reddit and then moving back to his bridge to continue them. And like most trolls, he believes he has "won" because he Said Something. (Even if he said it while running away).

User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Sucks Mod
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by JuiceBeetle » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:51 pm

Mod note: the usual Kumiko off-topic complaint of being banned from wikipedia and wikipediocracy and its discussion was moved to The Kumioko Review.
#Bbbgate

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 183 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:50 am

(insert eyeroll here)

User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Sucks Mod
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by JuiceBeetle » Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:46 pm

Image
Image
Image
Image
:roll:
#Bbbgate

User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipediocracy: new confidentiality rule in TOS

Post by Dysklyver » Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:48 pm

The way the hidden forum was generally explained in the past, was that it merely prevent Google indexing it. It was never as far as I could tell suppose to be a Very Secrekt Area. :?
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal. find me on the Wiki Treehouse Discord.

Post Reply