Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violation

Internet Fads, Fallacies, and GroupThink - and their influence on Wikipedia.
Information must be free, as is your hard work.
User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
kołdry
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by thekohser » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:41 am

The Joy wrote:I screwed it all up royally.
You're always welcome to just stay here and enjoy our very nicely-managed site that is also free to use.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by The Joy » Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:20 am

thekohser wrote:
The Joy wrote:I screwed it all up royally.
You're always welcome to just stay here and enjoy our very nicely-managed site that is also free to use.
No, thank you.
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Zoloft » Fri Mar 03, 2017 5:19 am

The Joy wrote:Well, I screwed it all up. Now it won't go to the domain I want and instead has a domain.olddomain.com. How can I make Bluehost to recognize the domain I want and not use the old Primary domain at all? This makes no sense. Now I have a website at a bizarre domain name.

Edit: Tried to redirect the domain and it works, but it just takes me to some generic Bluehost menu. I screwed it all up royally.
Instead of wrassling with it, get into the Bluehost help system and they can fix this easily.

Good luck.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Kingsindian
Habitué
Posts: 2593
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:07 am
Wikipedia User: Kingsindian

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Kingsindian » Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:00 pm

This thread (among other things) was mentioned in a (failed) RfB for Salvidrim. Admin BU Rob13 (T-C-L) is apparently not happy that Salvidrim opened a thread about the other (now deleted) forum, therefore giving it visibility.
Oppose due to privacy concerns. I dug deeper to see if I'd feel comfortable with you having access to non-public information, and all I found is that you publicly stated during the arbitration elections that you read a blog that I would consider to be a stalker blog. You also mentioned your Wikipediocracy activity during the arb elections, and in looking through your contribs there, you even started a thread about that blog's associated forum going offline. The blog and accompanying forum I'm talking about (but will not name or link to in order to avoid giving them visibility) have maliciously attempted to out numerous Wikipedians, including myself. This association makes me uncomfortable with you holding any permissions related to non-public information. ~ Rob13 Talk 02:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

While it is unfortunate that merely reading material with which one disagrees becomes an "association" in your minds Rob and other privacy-related opposers), I stand by my position of not turning a blind eye to any venue that might impact Wikipedia or its users. I'd rather read the contents and be disgusted that remain blissfully unaware as you seem to imply we should. And I repeat, what little non-public information transits through a bureaucrat's hands is nothing compared to the masses of private UTRS and OTRS communications in which I believe I have proven my respect for the sanctity of our current privacy policies. Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I cannot overstate how little I feel "material with which one disagrees" is the same thing as "material that directly led to multiple people making credible threats against my life". You did not merely read the site to stay aware; you started a discussion thread about it, spreading knowledge of it to people who may otherwise have been unaware. The particular site you discussed and increased visibility for is a site that makes it unsafe for some to edit this project. The more you increase its visibility, the more danger certain editors are in. That is at best a seriously poor judgement on your part, and we need bureaucrats with good judgement. As for your OTRS access, I personally think that is incompatible with the stances you've taken and represents a legal liability for the Foundation, but that's not my decision to make. ~ Rob13 Talk 03:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I started a thread to ask whether anyone knew why the forums were taken down. Turns out it was form ProBoards ToS violations. Which should be cause for celebration, probably? Anyways we're skirting the line of WP:BADSITES so let's let this rest. Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I doubt BU Rob 13 very much when they say "material that directly led to multiple people making credible threats against my life". If my activity on Wikipedia led to multiple credible threats against my life (through whatever channel), I would get the hell away from Wikipedia. We're not exactly curing cancer or working for world peace here.

User avatar
Salvidrim
Critic
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:27 pm
Wikipedia User: Salvidrim!
Actual Name: Ben Landry
Location: Montreal, Canada
Contact:

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Salvidrim » Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:15 pm

Thanks for including my response :)

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by thekohser » Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:44 pm

Kingsindian wrote:... I would get the hell away from Wikipedia.
Or, at least quit with your current account and start a new one called "Queenssinhalese"...
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:15 pm

Kingsindian wrote:I doubt BU Rob 13 very much when they say "material that directly led to multiple people making credible threats against my life". If my activity on Wikipedia led to multiple credible threats against my life (through whatever channel), I would get the hell away from Wikipedia. We're not exactly curing cancer or working for world peace here.
It would also make me wonder if my behavior on wikipedia might be a problem.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
The Adversary
Habitué
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:01 am
Location: Troll country

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by The Adversary » Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:54 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Kingsindian wrote:I doubt BU Rob 13 very much when they say "material that directly led to multiple people making credible threats against my life". If my activity on Wikipedia led to multiple credible threats against my life (through whatever channel), I would get the hell away from Wikipedia. We're not exactly curing cancer or working for world peace here.
It would also make me wonder if my behavior on wikipedia might be a problem.
There are people who regularly have threats against their lives on Wikipedia, people who come across young Jeremy H., for one thing.

No, it doesn't have to be your behaviour, only your area of interest. There are some people who doesn't want some history documented.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:01 pm

The Adversary wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Kingsindian wrote:I doubt BU Rob 13 very much when they say "material that directly led to multiple people making credible threats against my life". If my activity on Wikipedia led to multiple credible threats against my life (through whatever channel), I would get the hell away from Wikipedia. We're not exactly curing cancer or working for world peace here.
It would also make me wonder if my behavior on wikipedia might be a problem.
There are people who regularly have threats against their lives on Wikipedia, people who come across young Jeremy H., for one thing.

No, it doesn't have to be your behaviour, only your area of interest. There are some people who doesn't want some history documented.
There are certain topics which seem to be populated by utter nutters.
It's criminal negligence on the part of the WMF that they don't protect editors more.

On the other side are the entitled apparatchiks who enjoy playing games and shitting on the 'lessers'.
There are cliques of like minded assholes all over en.wp who behave terribly towards anyone not of the body.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
The Adversary
Habitué
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:01 am
Location: Troll country

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by The Adversary » Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:20 pm

Vigilant wrote: There are certain topics which seem to be populated by utter nutters.
True, but there are rather controversial areas of WP which is populated ..not by fools. I would bet that the average IQ of regular editors in the IP area is quite above average. Idiots simply do not survive for long.
Vigilant wrote: It's criminal negligence on the part of the WMF that they don't protect editors more..
True. The WMF doest give 2 cents for the safety of their editors. They do everything to protect themselves, though. If it was up to me, I would fire 90% of the WMF gang.
Vigilant wrote: On the other side are the entitled apparatchiks who enjoy playing games and shitting on the 'lessers'.
There are cliques of like minded assholes all over en.wp who behave terribly towards anyone not of the body.
Always look at the editors contributions. If a major percentage is not to articles, then they are most likely gamers...(And likely admins, or admin candidates. :dry: )

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:58 pm

Not to get too much back on-topic or anything, but do we have any idea as to the issues and/or sequence of events that led to Mr. Rob13's allegations of "credible threats" that supposedly came from Wikipedia-Sucks-Badly or members thereof...? Or did he just block some rando who then told him "if I ever meet you in person, I'm going to kick your ass," as if either party would ever spend enough time out of the basement to meet anyone, much less kick their ass?

A cursory look at his user page and some of his contribs didn't reveal anything obvious... since he's an admin he could easily have deleted it all, though. Otherwise I probably wouldn't ask.

I mean, knowing these people, the "credible threat against (his) life" could easily have been some guy telling him he was planning to vote "oppose" in his RfA.

User avatar
Disgruntled haddock
Critic
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 1:57 am
Location: The North Atlantic

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Disgruntled haddock » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:12 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:Not to get too much back on-topic or anything, but do we have any idea as to the issues and/or sequence of events that led to Mr. Rob13's allegations of "credible threats" that supposedly came from Wikipedia-Sucks-Badly or members thereof...? Or did he just block some rando who then told him "if I ever meet you in person, I'm going to kick your ass," as if either party would ever spend enough time out of the basement to meet anyone, much less kick their ass?

A cursory look at his user page and some of his contribs didn't reveal anything obvious... since he's an admin he could easily have deleted it all, though. Otherwise I probably wouldn't ask.

I mean, knowing these people, the "credible threat against (his) life" could easily have been some guy telling him he was planning to vote "oppose" in his RfA.
I recall he requested a desysop a few months ago. His explicit reasoning was vague, but somewhere he made a thinly veiled allusion to outing. Can't be arsed to find it now, but maybe check his or Kudpung's talk pages. BU Rob 13's got the bit again, so whatever it was, he must be satisfied that it was only a temporary threat.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Poetlister » Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:31 pm

Oppose due to privacy concerns. I dug deeper to see if I'd feel comfortable with you having access to non-public information
He's already an edit filter manager and administrator. What can a bureaucrat see that he can't?
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Salvidrim
Critic
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:27 pm
Wikipedia User: Salvidrim!
Actual Name: Ben Landry
Location: Montreal, Canada
Contact:

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Salvidrim » Sat Jul 22, 2017 7:33 pm

That was pretty much my point but. 'crats rarely have any non-public info handed to them but it has happened a few times in the context of rename/vanish requests and resysoppings.

User avatar
Kingsindian
Habitué
Posts: 2593
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:07 am
Wikipedia User: Kingsindian

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Kingsindian » Sun Jul 23, 2017 5:25 am

BU Rob13 and many others' !votes are, as I see it, conflating two separate issues:

As far as I understand, Salvidrim has anti-privacy views: namely that if one doesn't have secrets online, they can't be used against you. Other people may have other views.

This is different from what one actually does on Wikipedia. An admin (or OTRS member or whatever) has, of course, access to non-public information. How they behave on Wikipedia (do they follows its procedures etc.) is a different matter altogether. I don't see any complaints about that.

Of course, it would be hard to observe any complaints in the first place, since the matter is private. Therefore, to a certain extent, one must use Salvidrim's public comments as a clue to how they would behave. Thus, many people were uncomfortable with their comments.

It is ironic, however, that Salvidrim's posts on reddit (unearthed by GorillaWarfare) sunk the RfB. One common way to deal with opposition research, skeletons in the closet etc., is to get it out early and deal with it, or at least have lines of defence prepared. Politicians (and anything that involves voting, like RfB, is inherently political) often do opposition research on themselves.

User avatar
Salvidrim
Critic
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:27 pm
Wikipedia User: Salvidrim!
Actual Name: Ben Landry
Location: Montreal, Canada
Contact:

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Salvidrim » Sun Jul 23, 2017 5:57 am

Kingsindian wrote: As far as I understand, Salvidrim has anti-privacy views: namely that if one doesn't have secrets online, they can't be used against you.
That is broadly accurate. I do understand why some people currently feel the need for privacy and I'm hoping for improvements of the issues that lead people to seek privacy, so that we can move away from anonymous/pseudonymous interactions online, as we largely have with real-life interactions a long time ago.

User avatar
Rogol Domedonfors
Habitué
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:09 pm
Wikipedia User: Rogol Domedonfors

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Rogol Domedonfors » Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:40 am

So would you say that the RFB started out seriously, or would it have been a piece of performance art from the very beginning?

User avatar
Rogol Domedonfors
Habitué
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:09 pm
Wikipedia User: Rogol Domedonfors

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Rogol Domedonfors » Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:56 pm

It looks like wikipediareview.proboards.com has just gone too.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:12 pm

There's a ton of silly infighting going on between the boards.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Rogol Domedonfors
Habitué
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:09 pm
Wikipedia User: Rogol Domedonfors

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Rogol Domedonfors » Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:16 pm

Something about being hacked by a group claiming to be Indian communists, too.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:19 pm

And the worst of those banned from here and WR prior.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:43 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:Something about being hacked by a group claiming to be Indian communists, too.
Hmm... we definitely don't want to stir up that particular nest of hornets, but at the same time, I believe the WR.Proboards folks somehow got themselves into the middle of the "India Against Corruption" dispute, which has little (if anything) to do with communism. The basic gist of this (and again, at the risk of them being very upset with me and this website just for mentioning it) is that at least two, and possibly three, organizations are calling themselves "India Against Corruption" - and their goals and missions are not exactly complementary or even compatible (though I believe they both oppose corruption in India, at least).

At some point there was a mediation request, one of them apparently threatened to sue Wikipedia for something User:Sitush did, they (but not Sitush) were banned under WP:NLT (and maybe a few other rules just for good measure), and basically all freaking hell broke loose... spilling over onto WR and (as you've noted) other WP-related sites.

I'm not saying they're bad people at all (actually, they're nice people! Nice, nice people!), and I'm not taking sides in any way - I'm just saying it's kind of a rabbit-hole and best for us to not to be involved, at least not until all that stuff is, you know, fully dealt with.

User avatar
Bezdomni
Habitué
Posts: 2935
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:07 pm
Wikipedia User: RosasHills
Location: Monster Vainglory ON (.. party HQ ..)
Contact:

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Bezdomni » Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:37 pm

Hm... there's a parody/best of site at http://wikipediareview.boards.net (currently starring the Dork Knight, SlipSlopped, someone named Billy the Bounder, and (of course) the Count... for the moment I've been spared).

I backed up all the stuff I'd written a few weeks ago, when the storm first started brewing. So, there's another island submerged as the water off-wiki continues rising.

It looks like someone's been backing up a lot of threads from there at http://archive.is in the past few days. The threads on Bishonen, Drmies, Snooganssnoogans, Sagecandor/Cirt, Volunteer Marek, and Dr. Blofeld all survived. The threads on Objective3000, Timothyjosephwood, my very best wishes, SPECIFICO, etc. sadly could not be saved, since they hadn't been created yet. :/

(all of those folks were involved in a Trump thread that did get archived...)
los auberginos

User avatar
tarantino
Habitué
Posts: 4697
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by tarantino » Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:47 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:It looks like wikipediareview.proboards.com has just gone too.
It was inevitable, really.

User avatar
Kingsindian
Habitué
Posts: 2593
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:07 am
Wikipedia User: Kingsindian

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Kingsindian » Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:55 pm

I believe auggie is unbanned here now. Perhaps they can tell us what the backstory is?

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Habitué
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by The Devil's Advocate » Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:59 pm

Just noting a back-up forum of sorts was established outside the Proboards system by Auggie back when WS got taken down. Hasn't been used much, but if there is no resolution with Proboards then I imagine discussion will have to move over there.

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."

- Noam Chomsky


Auggie
Regular
Posts: 490
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:30 am

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Auggie » Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:52 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:Just noting a back-up forum of sorts was established outside the Proboards system by Auggie back when WS got taken down. Hasn't been used much, but if there is no resolution with Proboards then I imagine discussion will have to move over there.
Thanks TDA.

I'm working on it. Updates will be posted here: http://wikirev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1804

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by thekohser » Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:39 am

Auggie wrote:Thanks TDA.

I'm working on it. Updates will be posted here: http://wikirev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1804
Have you all been putting any thought into how and why your non-Wikipediocracy forums keep getting shut down?
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Bezdomni
Habitué
Posts: 2935
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:07 pm
Wikipedia User: RosasHills
Location: Monster Vainglory ON (.. party HQ ..)
Contact:

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Bezdomni » Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:50 am

thekohser wrote:
Auggie wrote:Thanks TDA.

I'm working on it. Updates will be posted here: http://wikirev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1804
Have you all been putting any thought into how and why your non-Wikipediocracy forums keep getting shut down?
A certain "Moira" has claimed responsibility for the missive strike. It is unlikely this Moira is the same one as is on nl-wp. Doubt it's Pats Peña either.

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 0&start=70
los auberginos

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:07 am

Bezdomni wrote:A certain "Moira" has claimed responsibility for the missive strike. It is unlikely this Moira is the same one as is on nl-wp. Doubt it's Pats Peña either.
You don't think it's Moira Kelly, the actress who took over the Donna Heyward role from Lara Flynn Boyle for the Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me prequel movie, do you...?

:unsure:

I know it sounds far-fetched, but I have it on good authority that she was never a big fan of the WR ProBoards forum.

User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by The Joy » Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:02 am

My last comment on that forum was a joke about stealing Jake's egg salad recipes. Then I look today to see it gone and I think "Gee, I was only joking, Jake!"

It was only a matter of time with that forum. The socks were too many and it was difficult to moderate. I'm surprised the very first WR on ProBoards survived long being under Igor Alexander and Blu Aardvark's management. Maybe ProBoards were more lenient back in 2005/2006?
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by The Joy » Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:43 am

Vigilant wrote:There's a ton of silly infighting going on between the boards.
There are philosophical differences between the boards and differing views on how to run an online community. It reminds me of "The Simpsons" episode where the founders of Springfield and Shelbyville both agreed that they needed to move out west and form a free, bountiful community. Then, Shelbyville added "... and the right to marry our cousins!" At that point, the two founders disagreed and formed their own separate towns who hated each other for generations.

What turned me, and likely a few others, off with this site was we started with very high goals like creating a non-profit board and getting in really good with the mainstream media. Then things started falling apart. Those conversations died off and whenever I brought them up, the response was like "well, we decided it wasn't working out with that." Um.. "we?" I was a Trustee and it was decided that it wasn't "working out?" So I always felt there were off-site conversations happening without I or others knowing. We have so many hidden, semi-hidden, super-hidden, and extreme-hidden subforums with confidentiality requirements that I and others had no bloody idea what information we could actually share. It's a nightmare and a mindboggle. And many topics posted there that should NOT have been private would be posted in those hidden forums and I and others would suddenly get yelled at for divulging "secret" information. Then there are issues about who's funding the site and what influence they might have in editorial decisions among other things... something that a non-profit board could have solved.

My experience in Wikipedia criticism after the past ten years has taught me that you have to screenshot everything. People forget/neglect their word, so you always have to have evidence ready. That's no way to create trust and a community. In the end, it falls apart. I'm not really blaming Zoloft, but I was lead to believe when I was asked to come back there was going to be a major leadership shakeup and a revamped community here. Once again, I feel duped. I know some of you individually and I know you're alright, but this behavior I've described is really what's made people like me upset with this site. Maybe much of this can be chalked up to "miscommunication," but that means we've been absolutely terrible with communication since day one, if that's the case.

I've said my piece.
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Jim » Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:14 am

The Joy wrote:
Vigilant wrote:There's a ton of silly infighting going on between the boards.
There are philosophical differences between the boards and differing views on how to run an online community. It reminds me of "The Simpsons" episode where the founders of Springfield and Shelbyville both agreed that they needed to move out west and form a free, bountiful community. Then, Shelbyville added "... and the right to marry our cousins!" At that point, the two founders disagreed and formed their own separate towns who hated each other for generations.

What turned me, and likely a few others, off with this site was we started with very high goals like creating a non-profit board and getting in really good with the mainstream media. Then things started falling apart. Those conversations died off and whenever I brought them up, the response was like "well, we decided it wasn't working out with that." Um.. "we?" I was a Trustee and it was decided that it wasn't "working out?" So I always felt there were off-site conversations happening without I or others knowing. We have so many hidden, semi-hidden, super-hidden, and extreme-hidden subforums with confidentiality requirements that I and others had no bloody idea what information we could actually share. It's a nightmare and a mindboggle. And many topics posted there that should NOT have been private would be posted in those hidden forums and I and others would suddenly get yelled at for divulging "secret" information. Then there are issues about who's funding the site and what influence they might have in editorial decisions among other things... something that a non-profit board could have solved.

My experience in Wikipedia criticism after the past ten years has taught me that you have to screenshot everything. People forget/neglect their word, so you always have to have evidence ready. That's no way to create trust and a community. In the end, it falls apart. I'm not really blaming Zoloft, but I was lead to believe when I was asked to come back there was going to be a major leadership shakeup and a revamped community here. Once again, I feel duped. I know some of you individually and I know you're alright, but this behavior I've described is really what's made people like me upset with this site. Maybe much of this can be chalked up to "miscommunication," but that means we've been absolutely terrible with communication since day one, if that's the case.

I've said my piece.
What "turned me off" from contributing here for a while was a disagreement with one person.
That's silly, so I'm posting here again, and, looking back, it wasn't a huge thing, anyway. Tempers get frayed.
Given that, I don't think we should hold grudges, but I'm hardly the poster-boy for that position

User avatar
Rogol Domedonfors
Habitué
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:09 pm
Wikipedia User: Rogol Domedonfors

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Rogol Domedonfors » Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:43 am

If you look at the ProBoards Support Board, there are just two topics on the first page that have been locked by a ProBoards Admin. They are both about the same thing. I wonder if anyone can guess what that is?

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Jim » Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:50 am

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:I wonder if anyone can guess what that is?
Why do you "wonder" that, instead of just telling us what you think? Seems a bit unnecessarily rhetorical.

User avatar
Rogol Domedonfors
Habitué
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:09 pm
Wikipedia User: Rogol Domedonfors

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Rogol Domedonfors » Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:58 am

Spoiler alert -- they are both complaints by former members of the WR forum about the behaviour of other former members of that forum.

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Jim » Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:13 am

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:Spoiler alert -- they are both complaints by former members of the WR forum about the behaviour of other former members of that forum.
Oh, ok. If that's all you meant I can't see the need for the "quiz", but thanks for clarifying.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Poetlister » Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:14 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
Bezdomni wrote:A certain "Moira" has claimed responsibility for the missive strike. It is unlikely this Moira is the same one as is on nl-wp. Doubt it's Pats Peña either.
You don't think it's Moira Kelly, the actress who took over the Donna Heyward role from Lara Flynn Boyle for the Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me prequel movie, do you...?

:unsure:

I know it sounds far-fetched, but I have it on good authority that she was never a big fan of the WR ProBoards forum.
Who would gain the most from shutting down the competition to this site? Highly-placed people on this site? Maybe newly appointed site admins trying to establish their reputation? :sarcasm:
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Zoloft » Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:34 pm

As part of the handover, I reduced the number of private subforums. As far as I know, only one was not in Trustee view while The Joy was Trustee. It was used to store a couple of really toxic insults and one brief talk about what to do about them. When the discussion was active, it was visible to Trustees. Probably time to delete that one and reduce some other legacy stuff to ashes. I won't kill any useful history.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


Auggie
Regular
Posts: 490
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:30 am

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Auggie » Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:51 pm

Thank you for explaining, The Joy. I agree with you.

Long ago I realized the only person I could depend on was myself. That's when I created the "Emperor" persona and started my own wiki. Extending that to forums was more difficult to do. There is so much moderating work that you really need at least two moderators to help run even a small forum.

I'm not giving up on ProBoards. They implied that the abuse dept. might write back today or tomorrow.

Cla68
Habitué
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:43 pm
Wikipedia User: Cla68

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Cla68 » Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:38 pm

Zoloft wrote:As part of the handover, I reduced the number of private subforums. As far as I know, only one was not in Trustee view while The Joy was Trustee. It was used to store a couple of really toxic insults and one brief talk about what to do about them. When the discussion was active, it was visible to Trustees. Probably time to delete that one and reduce some other legacy stuff to ashes. I won't kill any useful history.
I also don't remember any convoluted turmoil or machinations taking place on varied, hidden, sub-forums on the site. Quite the opposite, actually.

User avatar
Rogol Domedonfors
Habitué
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:09 pm
Wikipedia User: Rogol Domedonfors

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Rogol Domedonfors » Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:47 pm

Gosh, things are moving fast. Now wikipediareview.boards.net has gone 25(a)!

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:01 pm

The Joy wrote:
Vigilant wrote:There's a ton of silly infighting going on between the boards.
There are philosophical differences between the boards and differing views on how to run an online community. It reminds me of "The Simpsons" episode where the founders of Springfield and Shelbyville both agreed that they needed to move out west and form a free, bountiful community. Then, Shelbyville added "... and the right to marry our cousins!" At that point, the two founders disagreed and formed their own separate towns who hated each other for generations.

What turned me, and likely a few others, off with this site was we started with very high goals like creating a non-profit board and getting in really good with the mainstream media. Then things started falling apart. Those conversations died off and whenever I brought them up, the response was like "well, we decided it wasn't working out with that." Um.. "we?" I was a Trustee and it was decided that it wasn't "working out?" So I always felt there were off-site conversations happening without I or others knowing. We have so many hidden, semi-hidden, super-hidden, and extreme-hidden subforums with confidentiality requirements that I and others had no bloody idea what information we could actually share. It's a nightmare and a mindboggle. And many topics posted there that should NOT have been private would be posted in those hidden forums and I and others would suddenly get yelled at for divulging "secret" information. Then there are issues about who's funding the site and what influence they might have in editorial decisions among other things... something that a non-profit board could have solved.

My experience in Wikipedia criticism after the past ten years has taught me that you have to screenshot everything. People forget/neglect their word, so you always have to have evidence ready. That's no way to create trust and a community. In the end, it falls apart. I'm not really blaming Zoloft, but I was lead to believe when I was asked to come back there was going to be a major leadership shakeup and a revamped community here. Once again, I feel duped. I know some of you individually and I know you're alright, but this behavior I've described is really what's made people like me upset with this site. Maybe much of this can be chalked up to "miscommunication," but that means we've been absolutely terrible with communication since day one, if that's the case.

I've said my piece.
I also walked away for a while for different reasons.
After months of thinking about it, I decided to give it one last go.

I've opened a thread.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8533

Tell me what you want to see here.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

dogbiscuit
Retired
Posts: 2723
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Wikipedia User: tiucsibgod

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by dogbiscuit » Fri Aug 25, 2017 1:04 pm

Isn't the fundamental issue that Wikipedia represents a wider sickness with the world - the rise of the inverted snobbery of the man in the street having more wisdom than the accredited expert?

That ill also afflicts Wikipediocracy to some extent, those who actually know something have to tolerate being treated as equals with the ignorant. It has become a sin to believe that the masses do not have the knowledge to contribute as equals to any discussion and issues resulting have to be tiptoed around.

If you want to get to the root of Wikipedia's problems, you have to look at the rapid transition of culture that has been inflicted upon us by the Internet (as a shorthand for the mix of modern media combined with the social media). It's a toxic mix of opinions being treated as facts, the right to holding a wrong opinion being held above the need to resolve issues correctly, a failure to grasp the fundamentals of the rights of free speech vs the extremist view that somehow extreme free speech lets the ignorant masses sort out the wheat from the chaff, the chase for clicks being more important than the need to inform correctly (I'm looking at the BBC which is in rapid decline becoming demand driven).

I've dipped into the forums for a read over the past few weeks and really found the contents uninspiring (but then again, that's why I left, and that realisation that Wikipedia was just a facet of a wider problem afflicting the modern world).

On that basis, looking back to discussions on the idea of the blog being more important than the forum, then I think you have to consider a closed, by invitation membership, where only those considered to make net contributions to the state of knowledge are given the space to promote their thinking. To pick an example, Vigilant refuses to suffer fools gladly, and back in the day would be taken to task for his vicious put downs, yet underneath the harsh exterior, he has shown himself a capable commentator on WMF technology. I suspect in a closed environment, his style of discourse would be quite different.

So:

1) You cannot disconnect the ills of Wikipedia from the wider ills of the world that to me appear to be driven by the cult of ignorance. Therefore, a focus on Wikipedia criticism will ultimately fail to diagnose the wider issues facing us.

2) Wikipedia just surfaced the cult of stupidity sooner and more clearly than media and politics.

3) The corrupt business practices of Jimbo (serial scam companies where he earns with no interest in the success of the venture) are worth following.

4) Consider a different structure of an editorial board and contributors rather than a debating shop. I'm not convinced that there is any benefit to the many eyes on Wikipedia - the core data and information has been gathered.

5) The forum can serve as a recruiting ground, but I think that the signal to noise ratio is extremely high. I think that the cult of extreme free speech has infected this site - historically being very reluctant to shut down disruptive members. Far more vicious moderation of members who are noise is required.

6) However, much you point out the stupidity of Wikipedia, the masses will ultimately not grasp the issue, or realise that they themselves are the target, because it challenges their right to believe that their opinions on everything are as valid as the next person's. Who, then, is the target of any generated wisdom of this site?

My 2d worth.
Time for a new signature.

Auggie
Regular
Posts: 490
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:30 am

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Auggie » Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:24 pm

I reject the idea that critics need to be sorted, ranked, and march in strict discipline as they participate on a forum that gossips about a silly encyclopedia-like website.

The concept of a group blog is also a weak one. Just start your own individual blogs and link to each other. Let the reader decide who is worth checking out.

You guys can take the "experts". I'm happy to keep slumming it with the common folk.

dogbiscuit
Retired
Posts: 2723
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Wikipedia User: tiucsibgod

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by dogbiscuit » Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:36 pm

Auggie wrote:I reject the idea that critics need to be sorted, ranked, and march in strict discipline as they participate on a forum that gossips about a silly encyclopedia-like website.

The concept of a group blog is also a weak one. Just start your own individual blogs and link to each other. Let the reader decide who is worth checking out.

You guys can take the "experts". I'm happy to keep slumming it with the common folk.
QED
Time for a new signature.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Poetlister » Fri Aug 25, 2017 6:49 pm

dogbiscuit wrote:Isn't the fundamental issue that Wikipedia represents a wider sickness with the world - the rise of the inverted snobbery of the man in the street having more wisdom than the accredited expert?
As Dogbiscuit knows, we had severe problems with that in Britain during the Brexit debate.
Michael Gove (T-H-L) has refused to name any economists who back Britain’s exit from the European Union, saying that “people in this country have had enough of experts”.
linkhttps://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29c ... c22d5d108c[/link]
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Rogol Domedonfors
Habitué
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:09 pm
Wikipedia User: Rogol Domedonfors

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Rogol Domedonfors » Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:01 pm

I agree with the diagnosis as far as Wikipedia goes. Like it or not, when making political decisions in a democracy, the voter in the street has exactly as many votes as the accredited expert, namely one.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Poetlister » Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:38 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:Like it or not, when making political decisions in a democracy, the voter in the street has exactly as many votes as the accredited expert, namely one.
True. We would hope that the expert would get a more sympathetic hearing than the average voter in the street, but that didn't seem to happen over Brexit.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violatio

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:10 pm

dogbiscuit wrote:1) You cannot disconnect the ills of Wikipedia from the wider ills of the world that to me appear to be driven by the cult of ignorance. Therefore, a focus on Wikipedia criticism will ultimately fail to diagnose the wider issues facing us.

2) Wikipedia just surfaced the cult of stupidity sooner and more clearly than media and politics.

3) The corrupt business practices of Jimbo (serial scam companies where he earns with no interest in the success of the venture) are worth following.

4) Consider a different structure of an editorial board and contributors rather than a debating shop. I'm not convinced that there is any benefit to the many eyes on Wikipedia - the core data and information has been gathered.

5) The forum can serve as a recruiting ground, but I think that the signal to noise ratio is extremely high. I think that the cult of extreme free speech has infected this site - historically being very reluctant to shut down disruptive members. Far more vicious moderation of members who are noise is required.

6) However, much you point out the stupidity of Wikipedia, the masses will ultimately not grasp the issue, or realise that they themselves are the target, because it challenges their right to believe that their opinions on everything are as valid as the next person's. Who, then, is the target of any generated wisdom of this site?
I share the distaste expressed pervious for the elitist/technocratic underpinnings expressed in Dogbiscuit's thoughtful post. A discussion board is about discussion which implies a variety of people from a variety of backgrounds coming at things from a variety of angles.

On the other hand, I do very much share the perspective that "the core data and information" of WP "has been gathered" and there is not much sense in huffing and puffing about it. What can be done is that bad content can be identified and corrected (anathema to some here), and bad actors exposed — up to and including "WMF board member for life" JW and his hypocritical commercial machinations.

I continue to believe that the model of a WPO blog featuring a series of essays is inferior to a regular publication with standardized content covered by a team of regulars in terms of building readership and thus influence.

This site, to my mind, has never been for the general public, but rather for Wikipedians themselves. If, however, the general public has been the target audience all along, it must be dismissed as having been an enormous failure.

There has always been a tension between revolution and reform in the WP criticism world — between the Hasten The Day set and the Find It and Fix It types such as myself. I don't think this fundamental division will ever go away, although there are certain commonalities of interest between the two groups. This division is probably what drives the division between WPO and the Wikipedia Review II / Wikipedia Sucks and So Does Its Critics type boards, which think anything short of blowing WP up is a pointless exercise.

Personally, I think WPO has done a good job of walking the line between the two perspectives and offering a "big tent" for various shades of opinion, but obviously Your Mileage May Vary.

RfB

Post Reply