Kumioko banned from Wikipedia

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:48 pm

I just thought I would let you know that I have been banned from Wikipedia. I figured that should make some of you very happy and I figured this would get opened so I wanted to be the one to do it. I have seen this coming for a while due to my stance on Arbcom and policy violating Admins. I have been creating accounts since september in anticipation. They just blocked about 60, but thats only the last few days. All I wanted to do was help the project and they threw me out so now I will be the most prolific vandal, troll and sockmaster in Wikipedia history. Free Kumioko!

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:52 pm

Wrong. You weren't banned "due to my stance on Arbcom and policy violating Admins". You were banned because you have done nothing but whine incessantly, like the infantile little shit you clearly are.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:59 pm

Oh, in case anyone reaaaaallllllyyy wants to see the discussion: link

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:59 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:Wrong. You weren't banned "due to my stance on Arbcom and policy violating Admins". You were banned because you have done nothing but whine incessantly, like the infantile little shit you clearly are.

This. Proven beyond doubt by "All I wanted to do was help the project and they threw me out so now I will be the most prolific vandal, troll and sockmaster in Wikipedia history. Free Kumioko!" - the kind of response and actions a five-year-old would say and do (although obviously with far less sophisticated words; the lack of punctuation would probably be the same.)

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:10 pm

*yawn* another one cured of chronic wikipedia.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:14 pm

lilburne wrote:*yawn* another one cured of chronic wikipedia.

Um, no. A 'cure' (assuming one is needed - I'm currently unable to make my own mind up regarding this) would involve walking away from it, not declaring that one intended to engage in infantile attention-seeking behaviour on the site.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:16 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:
lilburne wrote:*yawn* another one cured of chronic wikipedia.
Um, no. A 'cure' (assuming one is needed - I'm currently unable to make my own mind up regarding this) would involve walking away from it, not declaring that one intended to engage in infantile attention-seeking behaviour on the site.

I'm referring to the belief that it is worth treating seriously. Engage in infantile attention-seeking behaviour on the site would cover that.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:28 pm

You can think whatever you want Andy. I was devoted to the project. I believed I was doing some good by participating and all I got was insulted. I have come to realize that its nothing but a bunch of losers looking or validation in their lives as they edit from their mothers basement. I should have known that no one would take the issue of abusive admins seriously. That's why the site has been spiraling down, too many abusive admins who control the ability of pushing their own POV and own their articles.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:31 pm

Kumioko wrote:You can think whatever you want Andy. I was devoted to the project. I believed I was doing some good by participating and all I got was insulted. I have come to realize that its nothing but a bunch of losers looking or validation in their lives as they edit from their mothers basement. I should have known that no one would take the issue of abusive admins seriously. That's why the site has been spiraling down, too many abusive admins who control the ability of pushing their own POV and own their articles.

So why do you still want to hang around with a 'bunch of losers'?

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:38 pm

I don't, but I still believe in the goal of the project. I just don't think it can survive unless the WMF or the Arbcom starts doing something about the admins who don't care about anything else except showing off. They protect everything, block everyone and use the fear and threats of blocks to get their way in discussions. It happens all the time and no one does anything. They don't do anything because they lack the morale courage to do the right thing. Its easier to look the other way and let these abusive admins drag the site down. So now if they want me to be a sockmaster, then fine, I'll pursue that with just as much enthusiasm as I did editing. I know they'll catch me eventually but in the mean time I will be a drain on resources and divert them from being able to do anything else. Will I make a difference, probably not.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:42 pm

But at least you all will have another editor to talk trash about.:-)

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:45 pm

Kumioko wrote:I don't, but I still believe in the goal of the project. I just don't think it can survive unless the WMF or the Arbcom starts doing something about the admins who don't care about anything else except showing off. They protect everything, block everyone and use the fear and threats of blocks to get their way in discussions. It happens all the time and no one does anything. They don't do anything because they lack the morale courage to do the right thing. Its easier to look the other way and let these abusive admins drag the site down. So now if they want me to be a sockmaster, then fine, I'll pursue that with just as much enthusiasm as I did editing. I know they'll catch me eventually but in the mean time I will be a drain on resources and divert them from being able to do anything else. Will I make a difference, probably not.

So vandalism/trolling/acting like a three-year-old makes you some kind of hero fighting against the system does it? Pathetic...

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:57 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:
Kumioko wrote:So now if they want me to be a sockmaster, then fine, I'll pursue that with just as much enthusiasm as I did editing. I know they'll catch me eventually but in the mean time I will be a drain on resources and divert them from being able to do anything else. Will I make a difference, probably not.
So vandalism/trolling/acting like a three-year-old makes you some kind of hero fighting against the system does it? Pathetic...

Quite.

Why don't you just find some other way to spend your life, Kumioko?

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:09 pm

Kumioko wrote:So now if they want me to be a sockmaster, then fine, I'll pursue that with just as much enthusiasm as I did editing. I know they'll catch me eventually but in the mean time I will be a drain on resources and divert them from being able to do anything else. Will I make a difference, probably not.

No offense, Kumioko, but you're a pretty shitty sockmaster.

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:21 pm

Mason wrote:
Kumioko wrote:So now if they want me to be a sockmaster, then fine, I'll pursue that with just as much enthusiasm as I did editing. I know they'll catch me eventually but in the mean time I will be a drain on resources and divert them from being able to do anything else. Will I make a difference, probably not.
No offense, Kumioko, but you're a pretty shitty sockmaster.

Not everyone has read up on how to evade CheckUser. Besides, obvious socks draw attention away from your real nym.

(edited)

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:45 pm

Of course what Kumioko the urban guerilla fighting the evil admins fails to take into account is it is precisely the trolls/vandals/attention-seekers that enable the admins in the first place. Less trolls, less justification for evil-adminnery. And less reasons for evil admins to feel good about themselves. Fighting the system? Nope. Perpetuating it...

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:56 pm

Oh, did Kumioko come here now?

Bless.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:56 pm

Kumioko wrote:You can think whatever you want Andy. I was devoted to the project. I believed I was doing some good by participating and all I got was insulted. I have come to realize that its nothing but a bunch of losers looking or validation in their lives as they edit from their mothers basement. I should have known that no one would take the issue of abusive admins seriously. That's why the site has been spiraling down, too many abusive admins who control the ability of pushing their own POV and own their articles.

So, you are in good company as one of the "bunch of losers looking or [sic] validation in their lives as they edit from their mothers [sic] basement?"

Or , it is nothing but that with a singular and self-aware exception? (That one exception being you!)

Not sure what is going on, but not looking like favoring your side so far.

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:01 pm

60+ checkuser confirmed accounts. That's pathetic, Kumioko. Get a life.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:07 pm

Kumioko wrote:I don't, but I still believe in the goal of the project. I just don't think it can survive unless the WMF or the Arbcom starts doing something about the admins who don't care about anything else except showing off. They protect everything, block everyone and use the fear and threats of blocks to get their way in discussions. It happens all the time and no one does anything. They don't do anything because they lack the morale courage to do the right thing. Its easier to look the other way and let these abusive admins drag the site down. So now if they want me to be a sockmaster, then fine, I'll pursue that with just as much enthusiasm as I did editing. I know they'll catch me eventually but in the mean time I will be a drain on resources and divert them from being able to do anything else. Will I make a difference, probably not.

It does seem that Wikipedia goes out of its way to encourage users to become trolls.

My block was absurd and reflected nothing but laziness and paranoia on the part of admins. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or playground (for you mathKowTowDemanderAndHaterOfTheRhetorical)? If it were the former admins would even look at contributions. But it's a playground, so "BAM! Whacked a Troll!" is being played, and they keep popping up.

But, you know, popular user Cwmhiraeth (T-C-L) 's fake taxonomies cover any vandalism I could come up with, and she is so well-supported by the community and admins, that my efforts would be lame in comparison. It's a mace, not a sword, with such a playground, so few people there to write content, so much bad content on the main page that admins and editors support, one more troll, not much to look at here, move along.

Troll away. Think you can top Cwmhiraeth? I doubt it.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:16 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:Of course what Kumioko the urban guerilla fighting the evil admins fails to take into account is it is precisely the trolls/vandals/attention-seekers that enable the admins in the first place. Less trolls, less justification for evil-adminnery. And less reasons for evil admins to feel good about themselves. Fighting the system? Nope. Perpetuating it...

Oh, forgive me if I hurl. If admins were not so arbitrary and so self-congratulatory, with their, BEANS PRONOUNCEMENTS and shouts of QUACK and their SCREAMING their successful troll/sock/whatevertheF captures from the tops of insider buildings they would remove 99% of the fun from trolling.

I was accused of and blocked for being the sock of an obvious 10-year-old who had never made a content edit. While blocked for being a child who did not edit content, I was also accused of being a sophisticated researcher, and therefore an obvious sock of some academic.

Admins not responsible for their actions? Little kids made them do it?

Then maybe you ought to find some adult admins.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:20 pm

enwikibadscience wrote:
AndyTheGrump wrote:Of course what Kumioko the urban guerilla fighting the evil admins fails to take into account is it is precisely the trolls/vandals/attention-seekers that enable the admins in the first place. Less trolls, less justification for evil-adminnery. And less reasons for evil admins to feel good about themselves. Fighting the system? Nope. Perpetuating it...
Oh, forgive me if I hurl. If admins were not so arbitrary and so self-congratulatory, with their, BEANS PRONOUNCEMENTS and shouts of QUACK and their SCREAMING their successful troll/sock/whatevertheF captures from the tops of insider buildings they would remove 99% of the fun from trolling.

I was accused of and blocked for being the sock of an obvious 10-year-old who had never made a content edit. While blocked for being a child who did not edit content, I was also accused of being a sophisticated researcher, and therefore an obvious sock of some academic.

Admins not responsible for their actions? Little kids made them do it?

Then maybe you ought to find some adult admins.

Nothing you write is incompatible with what I wrote.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:28 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:
AndyTheGrump wrote:Of course what Kumioko the urban guerilla fighting the evil admins fails to take into account is it is precisely the trolls/vandals/attention-seekers that enable the admins in the first place. Less trolls, less justification for evil-adminnery. And less reasons for evil admins to feel good about themselves. Fighting the system? Nope. Perpetuating it...
Oh, forgive me if I hurl. If admins were not so arbitrary and so self-congratulatory, with their, BEANS PRONOUNCEMENTS and shouts of QUACK and their SCREAMING their successful troll/sock/whatevertheF captures from the tops of insider buildings they would remove 99% of the fun from trolling.

I was accused of and blocked for being the sock of an obvious 10-year-old who had never made a content edit. While blocked for being a child who did not edit content, I was also accused of being a sophisticated researcher, and therefore an obvious sock of some academic.

Admins not responsible for their actions? Little kids made them do it?

Then maybe you ought to find some adult admins.
Nothing you write is incompatible with what I wrote.

Lol, I missed the "enabling" snide remark. Well done.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:34 pm

Mason wrote:
Kumioko wrote:So now if they want me to be a sockmaster, then fine, I'll pursue that with just as much enthusiasm as I did editing. I know they'll catch me eventually but in the mean time I will be a drain on resources and divert them from being able to do anything else. Will I make a difference, probably not.
No offense, Kumioko, but you're a pretty shitty sockmaster.

No offense taken, you know why? Because only about half those 60+ are me. The rest were just helpless well meaning editors. Same with the ones AGK blocked and the IP that Jehochman accused of being me. They don't all have to be me, all they have to do is be caught in the path. I don't really care anymore if Wikipedia likes me or not, they can delete every edit I did. They didn't want me there anyway and they made that clear as crystal. So, since they didn't want me there, I'll have some fun. And I haven't even tried to be a sockmaster yet. Pretty soon it will be 260+ accounts.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:43 pm

Kumioko wrote:And I haven't even tried to be a sockmaster yet. Pretty soon it will be 260+ accounts.

I think your life would be better if you added "127.0.0.1 en.wikipedia.org" to your HOSTS file and left it there for at least a few months.

MilesMoney · Unread post by **MilesMoney** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:55 pm

enwikibadscience wrote:
Oh, forgive me if I hurl. If admins were not so arbitrary and so self-congratulatory, with their, BEANS PRONOUNCEMENTS and shouts of QUACK and their SCREAMING their successful troll/sock/whatevertheF captures from the tops of insider buildings they would remove 99% of the fun from trolling.

I was accused of and blocked for being the sock of an obvious 10-year-old who had never made a content edit. While blocked for being a child who did not edit content, I was also accused of being a sophisticated researcher, and therefore an obvious sock of some academic.

Admins not responsible for their actions? Little kids made them do it?

Then maybe you ought to find some adult admins.

This looks like a rare case of assholes all around. Yes, the block was just thin-skinned narcissists silencing all criticism, but anyone who responds to this by creating a legion of sock is an asshole who should have been banned on that basis alone.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 12:00 am

Kelly Martin wrote:
Kumioko wrote:And I haven't even tried to be a sockmaster yet. Pretty soon it will be 260+ accounts.
I think your life would be better if you added "127.0.0.1 en.wikipedia.org" to your HOSTS file and left it there for at least a few months.

He needs a long vacation in an area with no Internet. I suggest the remote place in India where Jimbo was during the Essjay saga.

Really, Kumioko, you need a detox.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 12:17 am

Kumioko wrote:I just thought I would let you know that I have been banned from Wikipedia. I figured that should make some of you very happy and I figured this would get opened so I wanted to be the one to do it.

It's good to see that you have a healthy sense of self worth, and that you are taking charge of the situation here on Wikipediocracy.

If you could give us the cliff notes version of why you were banned and why being banned bothers you, the old hats among us would understand why you went through the trouble of opening this thread. Clearly you have something you want to say, but I for one am not at all clear about what that might be.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 1:11 am

SB_Johnny wrote:If you could give us the cliff notes version of why you were banned and why being banned bothers you, the old hats among us would understand why you went through the trouble of opening this thread. Clearly you have something you want to say, but I for one am not at all clear about what that might be.

Same here. Plus, you could explain the following chart to the rest of us peons.

Chart23.png

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 1:37 am

As for why I started this thread: I figured the peanut gallery over here would start talking about how the Stooge (or whatever term you choose) finally got tossed out. Or some such crap. So I figured I would just beat you too it.

You all are right I probably do need a break. I 'll probably take some time off now that I will have a lot more free time on my hands.

The cliffs notes version is this: I have been railing on the Admins and Arbcom for a while. Periodically I would get blocked because some admin would get tired of being under the lamp. Sometimes they would bait me into responding in such a way they could justify a block. I don't like not being able to participate in discussions about me which was happening more and more because admins would block me so I could not respond. I finally got tired of it and locked my account and just edited under IP's. Problem is my work and home are 2 different IP's so that further justified to them I was socking. That eventually led to the Ban discussions and it became evident that they were going to keep opening a ban discussion until they got enough votes. So I created a few socks Ironically more than half of the usernames they blocked weren't even me. AGK blocked a group that wasn't me and Jehochman accused an IP of being me. So the admins on the site are blocking innocent potential editors because they think its me and their shitty Checkuser program isn't worth the bytes its made of.

In the end its Wikipedia that loses not me. Backlogs are growing longer and longer, more editors are leaving and less are coming in. Its the same 20 abusive admins doing 90% of the admin work. So the factors are building up to the end of Wikipedia in the next couple years unless something drastic is done to change it. We'll see.

As for your comments Andy the grump, I likely think as lowly of you and your demeanor on Wiki as you do of me. So your comments don't really matter that much. They just show you as being...well....grumpy.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 1:49 am

Kumioko wrote:As for why I started this thread: I figured the peanut gallery over here would start talking about how the Stooge (or whatever term you choose) finally got tossed out. Or some such crap. So I figured I would just beat you too it.

Probably not. Is there some backstory here to explain why we should know who "Kumioko" is, and why he or she is important to the WP picture show?

Kumioko wrote:The cliffs notes version is this: I have been railing on the Admins and Arbcom for a while. Periodically I would get blocked because some admin would get tired of being under the lamp. Sometimes they would bait me into responding in such a way they could justify a block. I don't like not being able to participate in discussions about me which was happening more and more because admins would block me so I could not respond. I finally got tired of it and locked my account and just edited under IP's. Problem is my work and home are 2 different IP's so that further justified to them I was socking. That eventually led to the Ban discussions and it became evident that they were going to keep opening a ban discussion until they got enough votes. So I created a few socks Ironically more than half of the usernames they blocked weren't even me. AGK blocked a group that wasn't me and Jehochman accused an IP of being me. So the admins on the site are blocking innocent potential editors because they think its me and their shitty Checkuser program isn't worth the bytes its made of.

Right, but why were you railing against the admins and arbcom? Were you a contributor of some sort in the past? Did you run afoul of a cabal somewhere along the way? Did Jimbo send his cat to steal your tongue? Did Jehochman steal a potential paid-editing client right from under your nose?

I'm just not seeing the point. Unless you just want to argue with Andy the grump, in which case, carry on sir.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:00 am

Well your first mistake was assuming anyone here gives a fuck about you Kumioko.

Long story shortened for anyone who doesnt know... Kumioko started his downward spiral after being prevented from doing automated/bot tasks. Some of the Bot approvals threads where his competance is questioned were mildly amusing.

Rather than doing something else, or you know, becoming competant, he instead chose to bitch and moan and whine and *snore*....

And ended up banned. Easily avoidable. Just dont be an arse when you have nothing to contribute.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:10 am

Anroth wrote:Long story shortened for anyone who doesnt know... Kumioko started his downward spiral after being prevented from doing automated/bot tasks. Some of the Bot approvals threads where his competance is questioned were mildly amusing.

Ah, got it. Waste of effort on my part looking for a story then I guess.

(and, pssst!: no "a" in "competent". Bad word to misspell if you're trying to make a point about someone's competence as an encyclopedist.)

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:17 am

SB_Johnny wrote:
Anroth wrote:Long story shortened for anyone who doesnt know... Kumioko started his downward spiral after being prevented from doing automated/bot tasks. Some of the Bot approvals threads where his competance is questioned were mildly amusing.
Ah, got it. Waste of effort on my part looking for a story then I guess.

(and, pssst!: no "a" in "competent". Bad word to misspell if you're trying to make a point about someone's competence as an encyclopedist.)

Posting from my mobile and oddly its spelled that way in autocomplete. Just tried it twice. Im too lazy to correct spel/gram after the fact. Its a chore on a mobile as it is. I probably spelled it incorrectly in the past and its now saved.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:35 am

MilesMoney wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:
Oh, forgive me if I hurl. If admins were not so arbitrary and so self-congratulatory, with their, BEANS PRONOUNCEMENTS and shouts of QUACK and their SCREAMING their successful troll/sock/whatevertheF captures from the tops of insider buildings they would remove 99% of the fun from trolling.

I was accused of and blocked for being the sock of an obvious 10-year-old who had never made a content edit. While blocked for being a child who did not edit content, I was also accused of being a sophisticated researcher, and therefore an obvious sock of some academic.

Admins not responsible for their actions? Little kids made them do it?

Then maybe you ought to find some adult admins.
This looks like a rare case of assholes all around. Yes, the block was just thin-skinned narcissists silencing all criticism, but anyone who responds to this by creating a legion of sock is an asshole who should have been banned on that basis alone.

Well, yes, weird excess. 60 socks? Get a life says it.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:36 am

Actually Anroh isn't correct. I was running a bot with minimal problems. But I got blocked when I took another editor to AN for violating the 3 revert rule. Instead of blocking him, they blocked me (and all I did was turn him in). Then I used my bot to tell a couple people I was blocked and couldn't comment for a couple days. So then they revoked my bot. All because an admin didn't bother to perform due diligence and BTW who later told me that they were too quick to block and should have looked into it more carefully. My problem with admins and Arbcom is that I am tired of seeing them be exempt from policy. They do whatever they want to whomever they want whenever they want. There are a number of admins on Wikipedia who would have been banned from the project themselves if they weren't admins. But they were admonished (which doesn't mean shit). I hope that clarifies. BTW, I do enjoy arguing with Andy the grump. I always imagine him as the 2 old guys from the Muppets sitting in the balcony.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:37 am

Not that it really matters to anyone but less than half those socks were mine. The rest were other editors accounts. So the Wikipidiots blocked a bunch of users thinking they were me but weren't.

MilesMoney · Unread post by **MilesMoney** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 3:22 am

Kumioko wrote:Not that it really matters to anyone but less than half those socks were mine. The rest were other editors accounts. So the Wikipidiots blocked a bunch of users thinking they were me but weren't.

I think that everyone here knows that SPI is a joke, with CU's lying about what they find. That still doesn't make it sane for you to sock like crazy. Even using your bot to say "I can't speak now" was a form of socking.

everyking · Unread post by **everyking** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:06 am

Pretty much everyone who is active enough for long enough on Wikipedia will eventually either be banned or quit in despair. The community and the power structures are just too dysfunctional. At least the ones who got banned wanted to keep at it.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:15 am

Kumioko wrote:Not that it really matters to anyone but less than half those socks were mine.

According to Hersch, 90% of the accounts listed in his SPI were not his.....it's standard procedure on Wikipedia to grab random user accounts and wave them around as "sockpuppets" of someone they want to get rid of.

MilesMoney · Unread post by **MilesMoney** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:42 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Not that it really matters to anyone but less than half those socks were mine.
According to Hersch, 90% of the accounts listed in his SPI were not his.....it's standard procedure on Wikipedia to grab random user accounts and wave them around as "sockpuppets" of someone they want to get rid of.

It's also standard procedure to target your enemies by claiming they're socks of long-banned editors. Some of these editors are repeatedly exhumed so that current editors can be declared as "obvious" socks who pass the DUCK test.

One of the times this was tried on me, some genius decided that I was a DUCK because I was also from New York, just liked the dead editor. When I pointed out that I was from North York, a part of Toronto and hundreds of kilometers away across a national border, he dropped that argument but didn't back down one bit.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:02 am

I believe Kumioko and I edited some of the same articles a few years ago related to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I suggest, Kumioko, that you use your alternate accounts to quietly add info to Wikipedia that supports one of your pet causes like most disaffected WP regulars now do. That's what I do, although I'm not using an alternate account to do it. Once you see that altruistically trying to build the 'pedia is a waste of time, then just use WP to further your own sense of social justice.

MilesMoney · Unread post by **MilesMoney** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:08 am

Cla68 wrote:I believe Kumioko and I edited some of the same articles a few years ago related to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I suggest, Kumioko, that you use your alternate accounts to quietly add info to Wikipedia that supports one of your pet causes like most disaffected WP regulars now do. That's what I do, although I'm not using an alternate account to do it. Once you see that altruistically trying to build the 'pedia is a waste of time, then just use WP to further your own sense of social justice.

With all due respect, that seems pointless.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:17 am

MilesMoney wrote:
Cla68 wrote:I believe Kumioko and I edited some of the same articles a few years ago related to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I suggest, Kumioko, that you use your alternate accounts to quietly add info to Wikipedia that supports one of your pet causes like most disaffected WP regulars now do. That's what I do, although I'm not using an alternate account to do it. Once you see that altruistically trying to build the 'pedia is a waste of time, then just use WP to further your own sense of social justice.
With all due respect, that seems pointless.

It depends. There is only one other site, that I know of, besides the US government sites, that cover the Camp Lejeune water contamination topic, so Wikipedia is a handy way to post information and links in one place, with a lot of Google juice, for people to reference. Since the subject doesn't have competing factions of people trying to promote their view of it, no one bothers the article and it stays stable. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

MilesMoney · Unread post by **MilesMoney** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:23 am

Cla68 wrote: It depends. There is only one other site, that I know of, besides the US government sites, that cover the Camp Lejeune water contamination topic, so Wikipedia is a handy way to post information and links in one place, with a lot of Google juice, for people to reference. Since the subject doesn't have competing factions of people trying to promote their view of it, no one bothers the article and it stays stable. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Ok, but there aren't a whole lot of articles that are interesting but not controversial.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:33 am

Kumioko,

I and others have tried to advise you to do other things for a long time.

Please consider whether all of us are your enemies or rather that we wish you well. Please take a vacation from Wikipedia and the internet.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 3:32 pm

No Keifer I don't believe for a second every one there is my enemy. Far from it. I think its a minority that are. They use the project to push POV and enforce their ownership over articles they push their POV too. Just try making an edit to Charles Lindburgh or a roads article and see how long it lasts. the problem is that a few abusive editors like Fram, Rschen, Sandstein and others are so entrenched they are exempt from policy. That is something I have a problem with. Adminship is just a few extra tools not a knighthood so they should be held to the same standard. At any rate, did about 500, 000 edits to Wikipedia over the years, so I was pretty active. Since my help wasn't wanted, I'll just distract them with socking and trolling as I find the time. Days or weeks might go by and it may come in waves but it'll be fun. Some of my friends have already edited. Most haven't been noticed yet. Ironically, even the socking template they are using has a broken link in it.

tern · Unread post by **tern** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:05 pm

You shouldn't still believe in the goal of the project, overriding knowing that it has thrown folks out. Any project that has committed throwings out automatically forfeits desirability of its goal.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:10 pm

tern wrote:You shouldn't still believe in the goal of the project, overriding knowing that it has thrown folks out. Any project that has committed throwings out automatically forfeits desirability of its goal.

Ooh, geek social fallacy #1. Haven't seen that in a while.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:53 pm

Kumioko wrote:I guess all along I was here waiting in the shadows for the day when I was could do this. When I could be the most prolific sockmaster, troll and vandal in Wikipedia history. Willie on wheels is nothing compared to me.

All shall tremble before Kumioko. All!