Forums for Strelnikov's blog taken down for ToS violation

[Auggie]

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.

I just want to clear up a misconception. WR2 has no official position on HTD vs. reformation. Personally, I'd be ok with Wikipedia if the Foundation stopped misrepresenting it and promoting its use in schools. If the whole world understood it to be a silly website experiment and quit misusing it and its search engine rankings fell accordingly, that's enough for me. Some would say that's equivalent to HTD though.

At any rate, all are welcome on WR2/WikiRev. Even people like you.

[Randy from Boise]

At any rate, all are welcome on WR2/WikiRev. Even people like you.

Ha ha, that I very much doubt, but I do appreciate the sentiment...

Tedious Tim

[Kingsindian]

I think dogbiscuit's post could be better discussed on the other thread. Perhaps those posts can be split?

About Auggie's site (and the older Wikipedia sucks site), I used to post there with no problems, by and large. And I am not "HTD" or whatever. Some people
there didn't like what I wrote, but that's normal. Ultimately, it's up to the person themselves if they want to engage with other people. Nobody can force me to respond to them.

My own blunt view of the difference between the ideology (if such a thing exists) of this site and WR2 site is that the latter was mostly started/continued due to some people being banned from here or these people having a general falling out/personal frictions with people here. The people still didn't like Wikipedia and they wanted to create their own outlet (which is totally fine). Perhaps it is too cynical, but in my view, sectarian squabbles are often over petty matters which are then retroactively justified as being about some fundamental differences on matters of principle.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

At any rate, all are welcome on WR2/WikiRev.

That was not my experience on WR2, and Auggie was one of the people who chose to lobby personal insults at me.

[The Joy]

It's been a strange and bewildering journey...

This bears repeating.

[Auggie]

At any rate, all are welcome on WR2/WikiRev.

That was not my experience on WR2, and Auggie was one of the people who chose to lobby personal insults at me.

Hmm well I'm sorry if that's the impression you got.

While you were on Wikipedia Review, I was nothing but nice to you.

After the ragequit, I did poke some fun at your name, your comically bad thread titles, and some of your posts on Wikipediocracy.

It wasn't meant to be personal though. You've been told a million times you're welcome back anytime.

But hey, if you've concluded the guys here are any nicer, good luck with that.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Auggie, I can tell the difference between criticism of my posts and personal abuse. You chose to direct personal abuse at me on the one hand while also stating that you wished me to return on the other. Please don't say things that aren't true.

[Poetlister]

Auggie, I can tell the difference between criticism of my posts and personal abuse. You chose to direct personal abuse at me on the one hand while also stating that you wished me to return on the other. Please don't say things that aren't true.

I think Auggie is saying that he wants you back so that you two can continue as before.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Auggie, I can tell the difference between criticism of my posts and personal abuse. You chose to direct personal abuse at me on the one hand while also stating that you wished me to return on the other. Please don't say things that aren't true.

I think Auggie is saying that he wants you back so that you two can continue as before.

Ah yes, that'll be it.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

[Bezdomni]

Since some here have been talking about the differences between WO and WS-1 / WR, I would say that when I was blocked for 6 months back in December for daring to question a topic-banned sockpuppet's motives in pushing propaganda, I felt I could learn a lot more about the current Wikipedia power players farther off wiki. In December 2016, WO was basically talking about TPO or making insider baseball jokes. That has changed to some extent (even significantly). Still, I don't see threads on recent actions by admins like Neutrality, Bishonen, MastCell, Drmies, Black Kite1, Lord Roem, etc. here (nor are/were there threads on the likely Brock-chain members here...)

WR/WS were more educational probably because while there may be more informed experts here, many of them are trying to protect their WP accounts or do not want to risk their credibility by going out on a limb to educate newcomers.

That said, I'm really happy to see the progress here since the low point of December 2016. The people who got WR banned from Proboards with their complaints should realize that they just removed a great deal of evidence from the fingertips of journalists. As such they should certainly not consider themselves either HTD or reformers but rather should consider themselves status quo enforcers / WP apologists.

---

1 Black Kite is a member here. He also twice protected the topic-banned sockpuppet Cirt/Sagecandor at ANI. Why was that? Did he know Sagecandor was Cirt? Incompetence? Some other reason? One could also wonder why Sagecandor is being allowed to quietly disappear into another account without an Arbcom case despite the overwhelming evidence...

[tarantino]

Still, I don't see threads on recent actions by admins like Neutrality, Bishonen, MastCell, Drmies, Black Kite1, Lord Roem, etc. here (nor are/were there threads on the likely Brock-chain members here...)

WR/WS were more educational probably because while there may be more informed experts here, many of them are trying to protect their WP accounts or do not want to risk their credibility by going out on a limb to educate newcomers.

I think many of us are bored with focusing on the player versus player stuff and don't think that it is as important as looking at the bigger picture. As for your second point, go to the list of members and sort by total posts. Of the top 50, I count 6 or 7 that are active wikipedians. Among recent frequent posters, there's probably fewer than that, unless you add the banned users who sockpuppet,

[Poetlister]

Black Kite is a member here. He also twice protected the topic-banned sockpuppet Cirt/Sagecandor at ANI. Why was that? Did he know Sagecandor was Cirt? Incompetence? Some other reason? One could also wonder why Sagecandor is being allowed to quietly disappear into another account without an Arbcom case despite the overwhelming evidence...

Cirt is among the worst admins I've ever encountered. Fortunately, he (or at least that account) is no longer an admin. Still, he should not be treated leniently.

[Randy from Boise]

Black Kite is a member here. He also twice protected the topic-banned sockpuppet Cirt/Sagecandor at ANI. Why was that? Did he know Sagecandor was Cirt? Incompetence? Some other reason? One could also wonder why Sagecandor is being allowed to quietly disappear into another account without an Arbcom case despite the overwhelming evidence...

Cirt is among the worst admins I've ever encountered. Fortunately, he (or at least that account) is no longer an admin. Still, he should not be treated leniently.

Cirt was an EXCELLENT AfD closer, no matter what one thinks about him in any other capacity.

What evidence is there that Sagecandor is Cirt?

RfB

[Poetlister]

Cirt was an EXCELLENT AfD closer, no matter what one thinks about him in any other capacity.

That's a "Mussolini made the trains run on time" argument, even if it's correct.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I think many of us are bored with focusing on the player versus player stuff and don't think that it is as important as looking at the bigger picture.

It reminds me of a discussion about whether online gaming is destroying our culture, making our children obese narcissists, plunging future generations into debt etc. The discussion really isn't advanced by a long diversion into whether a particular guild in Whales of Warcruft cheated by accumulating hit points by hiding magical objects in bodily cavities, or whether a gamemaster in Finding Fantasy 9 3/4 should have allowed someone to cast Right to Vanish before rather than after Expecto Puppetonum.

[Bezdomni]

What evidence is there that Sagecandor is Cirt?

TDA summarized the evidence quite well on Wikipedia Review II, but of course that has been jettisoned into the trashbin because of a fight over the Right Wikipedia Criticism Ideology one must have to exist.

From memory:
1) the two accounts share a number of formatting and linguistic traits (signature on a separate line, certain obsequious formulae which nobody else in all of Wikipedia has ever used, depersonalization of opponents, other linguistic formulae related to a desire for recognition that are not used in the same way by anyone else on Wikipedia)
2) both were avid book review writers. Sagecandor wrote 18+ in less than a month, all on books related to either the Fear Trump narrative or the Fear the Russians narrative (which is incidentally the official Brock line since January 2017).
3) both tried to push their articles to GA status and were frequent guests at DYK.
4) both regularly welcomed newcomers (cf. Tarantino's analysis in the Sagecandor WO thread) de-redlinking them and used savvy templates on their user page... also interesting is the number of times SC had their user page deleted...)
5) Sagecandor was obviously not a new account, getting involved at AfD from nearly their first edits. As you mention, Cirt was an AfD regular.
6) Cirt deleted their admin accounts long enough before reincarnating himself as Sagecandor that it was impossible for a checkuser to be conducted.
7) Cirt has previously admitted having been involved in promotional editing (cf. WR-1, email leak Alison-Slim Virgin-Cirt)

TDA's list (at archive.is) is much more complete and links to the specifics of my linguistic analysis, though now it has to be linked separately. Arbcom has been aware of the fact that this clearly passes the "duck" test for quite some time now, but has not acted publicly. (Sagecandor was tipped off by Goldenring after I emailed the latter separately and has subsequently stopped spinning with that account.)

I actually wondered if you were ever going to say anything about Cirt, Tim, as I noticed you'd often been in his corner historically.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Fascinating though this is, is it going to get traction in the world outside? Can you point to financial or sexual favours being offered or taken, or anything else that the public would regard as malpractice?

[Bezdomni]

The 12 hour edit days and the 18+ partisan book reviews *should* interest those concerned about shills / operatives. Still, as you say, there is no evidence I'm aware of of financial disbursements from either Minassian Media or one of David Brock's organizations. SC's promotion of the WP buzzword "neutral point of view" in his slanted review reviews is a clue though that there was a good bit of convergence in their goals.

The very nature of WP (which allows an anonymous admin bloke to call himself Neutrality when he is anything but) prevents this from being a story that easily appeals to the media. As Tim has said on many occasions, one can point to the problem of anonymity and show how using anonymous VPNs and waiting for checkuser info to be ditched has allowed Cirt to reincarnate, despite his topic-ban from matters related to US politicians.

The harassment versus criticism angle might be more productive. (Both Cirt and Sagecandor are big fans of accusing others of harassment.)

Sagecandor modeling his user page on Neutrality's and his early cosying up to Neutrality are also worthy of mention.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I don't want to be rude, but speaking from the point of view of an outsider, none of this has any interest at all. The public view Wikipedia as a free reliable encyclopaedia run by professional administrators and editors with teams of volunteer writers. They think it employs fact-checkers who leap into action to ensure that everything is always up-to-date and 100% accurate. The Foundation regularly puts out press releases praising it in those terms. To overthrow that image, you need scandals in terms that the public understands -- advertising inserted by venal editors, malpractice winked at by sexual predator staff, hoaxes overlooked by negligent editors, garbage written by incompetent writers. Can you provide anything on that scale?

[Randy from Boise]

What evidence is there that Sagecandor is Cirt?

TDA summarized the evidence quite well on Wikipedia Review II, but of course that has been jettisoned into the trashbin because of a fight over the Right Wikipedia Criticism Ideology one must have to exist.

From memory:
1) the two accounts share a number of formatting and linguistic traits (signature on a separate line, certain obsequious formulae which nobody else in all of Wikipedia has ever used, depersonalization of opponents, other linguistic formulae related to a desire for recognition that are not used in the same way by anyone else on Wikipedia)
2) both were avid book review writers. Sagecandor wrote 18+ in less than a month, all on books related to either the Fear Trump narrative or the Fear the Russians narrative (which is incidentally the official Brock line since January 2017).
3) both tried to push their articles to GA status and were frequent guests at DYK.
4) both regularly welcomed newcomers (cf. Tarantino's analysis in the Sagecandor WO thread) de-redlinking them and used savvy templates on their user page... also interesting is the number of times SC had their user page deleted...)
5) Sagecandor was obviously not a new account, getting involved at AfD from nearly their first edits. As you mention, Cirt was an AfD regular.
6) Cirt deleted their admin accounts long enough before reincarnating himself as Sagecandor that it was impossible for a checkuser to be conducted.
7) Cirt has previously admitted having been involved in promotional editing (cf. WR-1, email leak Alison-Slim Virgin-Cirt)

TDA's list (at archive.is) is much more complete and links to the specifics of my linguistic analysis, though now it has to be linked separately. Arbcom has been aware of the fact that this clearly passes the "duck" test for quite some time now, but has not acted publicly. (Sagecandor was tipped off by Goldenring after I emailed the latter separately and has subsequently stopped spinning with that account.)

I actually wondered if you were ever going to say anything about Cirt, Tim, as I noticed you'd often been in his corner historically.

Cirt disappeared in April 24, 2016 and Sagecandor appeared on November 17, 2016... Which is 6 months and change, just beyond the alleged 6 month holding period for checkuser data. I find that piece of circumstantial evidence to be fairly compelling. I also note the use of edit summaries is 99.9% for Cirt and 99.8% for Sagecandor.

There would seem to be a third account, however, to allow for full year from Aug. 2011 to Sept. 2012 when editing disappeared, a couple of dead valleys between then and the spring of 2016, and the nearly 7 months between the two accounts.

As for my own take on Cirt, I soured on him during the Donkey Punch affair. He is more than a bit of a troll and differs with me greatly on the place of porn at WP (he favors, ummm, very expansive parameters, putting it delicately).

RfB

[Bezdomni]

Rogol: I would characterize a good number of Sagecandor's book review reviews as garbage written by an incompetent prolix writer. The fact that most failed even to achieve the low bar of GA after self-nomination are evidence of that. ^^ There is also a bit of promotional writing for New York Journal of Books, though the main thrust of his edits, again, was to promote the Brock line on Trump & the Russians (as well as the Minassian Media / WMF line on "fake news"). Cf. his initial edits to Fake News Website (T-H-L), which generated attention on Jimbo's page and on Wikiinaction as soon as they were made...

I very seriously doubt, Tim, that these are his only two accounts. As one WR forumer remarked in the thread linked above: Sagecandor seems like a name that would be chosen from the CAPTCHA when multiple accounts were being created.

[Randy from Boise]

I don't want to be rude, but speaking from the point of view of an outsider, none of this has any interest at all. The public view Wikipedia as a free reliable encyclopaedia run by professional administrators and editors with teams of volunteer writers. They think it employs fact-checkers who leap into action to ensure that everything is always up-to-date and 100% accurate. The Foundation regularly puts out press releases praising it in those terms. To overthrow that image, you need scandals in terms that the public understands -- advertising inserted by venal editors, malpractice winked at by sexual predator staff, hoaxes overlooked by negligent editors, garbage written by incompetent writers. Can you provide anything on that scale?

Charges of content manipulation by dodging topic bans through account manipulation by a defrocked former administrator (who may be angling for tools again) would seem to be of sufficient interest to most here and within the mission of WPO.

There are plenty of other threads for you to read here, many of which were started by you yourself. If this bores you, read something else.

RfB

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Of interest to those already interested, yes. My point was to look for examples that would get traction in the world outside. That's a rather higher bar. Why would you not want stories that do that?

[Randy from Boise]

Mods, could we please have a split of the Cirt / Sagecandor stuff?

t


Merge target: "Is Sagecandor back in action?"

viewtopic.php?p=203958#p203958

[Bezdomni]

Rogol is not the first to have made this observation, and I agree that the story is just too complicated to squeeze into a short news item. I wrote I think 12 or 13 pages on it back when I was first banned (before SC had been IDed). Also, I'm not the best person to write about it since Wikipedians could say I have an ax to grind (since I was indeffed for pointing out the problem).

I was neither the first to notice him nor the person who IDed him as Cirt, but I did remain rather dedicated to digging once I saw the teamwork associated with the astroturfing. ^^

Tim: you do realize that is the section where journalists could not find it unless they are members, right?

[Randy from Boise]

Rogol is not the first to have made this observation, and I agree that the story is just too complicated to squeeze into a short news item. I wrote I think 12 or 13 pages on it back when I was first banned (before SC had been IDed). Also, I'm not the best person to write about it since Wikipedians could say I have an ax to grind (since I was indeffed for pointing out the problem).

I was neither the first to notice him nor the person who IDed him as Cirt, but I did remain rather dedicated to digging once I saw the teamwork associated with the astroturfing. ^^

Tim: you do realize that is the section where journalists could not find it unless they are members, right?

I don't think this is a topic for the journalists — this is a matter for the Wikipedians.

RfB

[Bezdomni]

I very much would agree. However ArbCom / Wales / Maher / etc. has already had two months to deal with the problem and has turned a blind eye, even refusing to acknowledge a the receipt of a single email from me.

When ArbCom (and the WMF) tacitly condone such behavior, journalists should get involved, as it shows that Cirt himself is not the only player in this game and that the corruption goes right up to the top.

[Zoloft]

Rogol is not the first to have made this observation, and I agree that the story is just too complicated to squeeze into a short news item. I wrote I think 12 or 13 pages on it back when I was first banned (before SC had been IDed). Also, I'm not the best person to write about it since Wikipedians could say I have an ax to grind (since I was indeffed for pointing out the problem).

I was neither the first to notice him nor the person who IDed him as Cirt, but I did remain rather dedicated to digging once I saw the teamwork associated with the astroturfing. ^^

Tim: you do realize that is the section where journalists could not find it unless they are members, right?

I don't think this is a topic for the journalists — this is a matter for the Wikipedians.

RfB

It's true we have multiple overlapping audiences:

• Ourselves
• Forumites as a whole
• Wikipedia users
• Wikimedia people-of-influence
• People who donate to the WMF
• Journalists
• The public as a whole

[Newsfeed]

I very much would agree. However ArbCom / Wales / Maher / etc. has already had two months to deal with the problem and has turned a blind eye, even refusing to acknowledge a the receipt of a single email from me.

When ArbCom (and the WMF) tacitly condone such behavior, journalists should get involved, as it shows that Cirt himself is not the only player in this game and that the corruption goes right up to the top.

No problem here, move along.
If you have ToS concerns involving a specific WMF user account then legal@wikimedia.org is the appropriate email ID to send a digitally/electronically signed email asking for an Office action to be taken within 5 business days. Of course you must specify your role and how actionable / quantifiable damage has been inflicted on you by aforesaid user misusing WMF computer servers in breach of ToS.

[Bezdomni]

ah yes, legal. ^^

http://thecitation.org/2017/07/12/aroun ... -movement/

[Newsfeed]

ah yes, legal. ^^
http://thecitation.org/2017/07/12/aroun ... -movement/

July 2017 @thecitation
Reorganization at WP criticism sites

Wikipedia criticism sites have reorganized. Wikipediocracy has announced resignations of its current organizers and moderators with new ones to be determined. During the Wikipediocracy hiatus, the criticism site Wikipedia Review Proboards was formed, and a third site was formed and disappeared.

But hey, who's counting !

[Newsfeed]

ah yes, legal. ^^
http://thecitation.org/2017/07/12/aroun ... -movement/

Apparently user 'citation' wants Auggies' latest forum to be taken down by briefcase wielding ninja lawyers - http://wikirev.org/forum/viewtopic.php? ... 1836#p2319

[Midsize Jake]

Apparently user 'citation' wants Auggies' latest forum to be taken down by briefcase wielding ninja lawyers - http://wikirev.org/forum/viewtopic.php? ... 1836#p2319

Come on, Mr. Newsfeed - this kind of misinformation is just egregiously unfair. Everyone knows ninja lawyers don't carry old-fashioned briefcases, they have wearable computing devices sewn directly into their ninja outfits that they access by voice recognition and control with virtual-reality tilt-gesture keyboards that appear to float in front of them like the old heads-up displays they still sometimes use in modern warplanes.

I'm surprised anyone still carries briefcases, personally - sometimes you could stuff bricks into them and use them as weapons, but for most purposes they're completely obsolete.

[Newsfeed]

I'm surprised anyone still carries briefcases, personally - sometimes you could stuff bricks into them and use them as weapons, but for most purposes they're completely obsolete.

Aah, but where do they keep those ninja costumes ?