Blacklisting Wikipediocracy

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:17 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&diff=543687655&oldid=543566505:

== wikipediocracy.com ==
{{Link summary|wikipediocracy.com}}

WO has regrettably decided to out a Wikipedia user on its pages (the link is available from its main page, and several sub-pages that link to what's on the front page) and several en-Wikipedia users have gone on a crusade to mention this site as much as possible to push drama and in some cases to further the outing. I hope WO will do the responsible thing and remove the post, but until such time as the outing information is no longer so readily available, such links should be blocked.

[[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 20:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:21 pm

http://tinyurl.com/b7uvlwf
http://tinyurl.com/amchpc5
http://goo.gl/0nhzR

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:31 pm

http://imgur.com/0kfQWTx

roger_pearse · Unread post by **roger_pearse** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:43 pm

This is a delightful story. Blogged.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:12 pm

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:16 pm

*slaps forehead*

Dang that's right!

It's 2013.

What would Sir Tim Berners-Lee (T-H-L) think!

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:20 pm

roger_pearse wrote:This is a delightful story. Blogged.

The first link contains what looks like session data. You might want to change the link to this:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1860

That is, drop the &sid*** part. I don't know enough about computers to know whether this is important.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:27 pm

{{support}}. Maybe we can go back to targeting our blogs at non-Wikipediots now!

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:28 pm

tarantino wrote:

Yup.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:30 pm

Untitled2.jpg

Moonage Daydream · Unread post by **Moonage Daydream** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:34 pm

And this one, of course.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:44 pm

Well, AGK has removed it from the spam blacklist, and is now working on adding a abuse filter that will prevent mentioning WO.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:47 pm

tarantino wrote:Well, AGK has removed it from the spam blacklist, and is now working on adding a abuse filter that will prevent mentioning WO.

*snort*
Hahaha!
I do believe that would be fun to enlarge.

roger_pearse · Unread post by **roger_pearse** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:49 pm

mac wrote:
roger_pearse wrote:This is a delightful story. Blogged.
The first link contains what looks like session data. You might want to change the link to this:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1860

That is, drop the &sid*** part. I don't know enough about computers to know whether this is important.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:10 pm

Zoloft wrote:
tarantino wrote:...adding a abuse filter that will prevent mentioning WO.
*snort*
Hahaha!
I do believe that would be fun to enlarge.

Does that pop up in google?

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:18 pm

Btw, I did take a look at Alexa. It seems this month

*Traffic rank went down (i.e. improved) by 38,637 (the 3 month drop was 49,181, so, if I understand it correctly (I don't know much about this stuff), about 80% of the traffic rank improvement was in the past month
*Number of page views up by 48%
*Pageviews/user up by 40%
*Time on site up by 83%
*Search % up ... only 6%. This last one (again, iiuic) tells you % of visits that arrive via search engine.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:53 pm

It seems in line when I started posting here! Coincidence? I think not.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:55 pm

Now removed? Hmmm... I'll simply note that "AGK," whoever he is, unilaterally added it to the blacklist today with zero discussion despite the notion being rejected by one of their holy "community processes" in the past couple of days. That vote is/was 7 against, 4 for.

Aren't the arbitrators supposed to channel "teh community's" will the way the Pope channels God's?

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:08 am

Seems to be more like channeling an evil spirit than the Holy spirit!

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:32 am

Ok, I can't help it, I got to say it: the funny thing about it is that Wikipediocracy was greatly helped out by Silver Seren, who in his zeal to go after the evil folks overplayed his hand and made the proposal prematurely. So it got rejected. And now you can point to the rejection and say "uh uh AGK". Thanks Seren! A wily schemer you're not. A schemer, yes. A wily, no.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:40 am

Volunteer Marek wrote:Ok, I can't help it, I got to say it: the funny thing about it is that Wikipediocracy was greatly helped out by Silver Seren, who in his zeal to go after the evil folks overplayed his hand and made the proposal prematurely. So it got rejected. And now you can point to the rejection and say "uh uh AGK". Thanks Seren! A wily schemer you're not. A schemer, yes. A wily, no.

AGK or SilverSeren could present their case for blacklisting WO to WP's configuration control board, whose job it is to make these kind of decisions. What? One of the most highly trafficked websites in the world doesn't have a configuration control board? Who is running that thing, a bunch of teen-agers?

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:41 am

Volunteer Marek wrote:Ok, I can't help it, I got to say it: the funny thing about it is that Wikipediocracy was greatly helped out by Silver Seren, who in his zeal to go after the evil folks overplayed his hand and made the proposal prematurely. So it got rejected. And now you can point to the rejection and say "uh uh AGK". Thanks Seren! A wily schemer you're not. A schemer, yes. A wily, no.

A Wile E. Coyote?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:55 am

Zoloft wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:Ok, I can't help it, I got to say it: the funny thing about it is that Wikipediocracy was greatly helped out by Silver Seren, who in his zeal to go after the evil folks overplayed his hand and made the proposal prematurely. So it got rejected. And now you can point to the rejection and say "uh uh AGK". Thanks Seren! A wily schemer you're not. A schemer, yes. A wily, no.
A Wile E. Coyote?

Vastly worse than that.
I heard that ACME called.
They want their rocket skates back.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:21 am

Zoloft wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:Ok, I can't help it, I got to say it: the funny thing about it is that Wikipediocracy was greatly helped out by Silver Seren, who in his zeal to go after the evil folks overplayed his hand and made the proposal prematurely. So it got rejected. And now you can point to the rejection and say "uh uh AGK". Thanks Seren! A wily schemer you're not. A schemer, yes. A wily, no.
A Wile E. Coyote?

yes. his new furry suit.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:26 am

Volunteer Marek wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
Volunteer Marek wrote:Ok, I can't help it, I got to say it: the funny thing about it is that Wikipediocracy was greatly helped out by Silver Seren, who in his zeal to go after the evil folks overplayed his hand and made the proposal prematurely. So it got rejected. And now you can point to the rejection and say "uh uh AGK". Thanks Seren! A wily schemer you're not. A schemer, yes. A wily, no.
A Wile E. Coyote?
yes. his new furry suit.

Oh, ho.

I see what you did there....

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:34 am

Volunteer Marek wrote:Ok, I can't help it, I got to say it: the funny thing about it is that Wikipediocracy was greatly helped out by Silver Seren, who in his zeal to go after the evil folks overplayed his hand and made the proposal prematurely. So it got rejected. And now you can point to the rejection and say "uh uh AGK". Thanks Seren! A wily schemer you're not. A schemer, yes. A wily, no.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:40 am

Let's all pause and have a moment of uh, <s>silence</s> <s>prayer</s> appreciation! for Silver Seren who will forever be remembered as the Wikipedia editor who saved Wikipediocracy from being blacklisted on Wikipedia. At least in 2013. If you could build monuments on the internet I picture some kind of a post-modern social commentary involving a gothic statue of a marble white tiger morphing into a a bronze coyote, with anchovies pizza splattered all over it. That's about right.

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:53 am

Volunteer Marek wrote:Let's all pause and have a moment of uh, <s>silence</s> <s>prayer</s> appreciation! for Silver Seren who will forever be remembered as the Wikipedia editor who saved Wikipediocracy from being blacklisted on Wikipedia. At least in 2013. If you could build monuments on the internet I picture some kind of a post-modern social commentary involving a gothic statue of a marble white tiger morphing into a a bronze coyote, with anchovies pizza splattered all over it. That's about right.

Speaking of Seren, does he have some sort of "batshit crazy" magnet? Mbz reached out to him today regarding Demiurge1000's usage of the hacked e-mails discussed on WR last year or so;

Hi Silver seren,
About a year ago user Demiurge1000 collaborated with a criminal who hacked an email account of a person. Although user Demiurge1000 has probably never posted to WR himself,he was helping that hacker to harass the person on WR. Then user Demiurge1000 was the first one to support the community ban of the person. As a reason for his support he used "the evidences" he got from the hacker. Even now user Demiurge1000 continues to hound the person he harassed so badly. Regards. 67.169.10.215 (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence for these claims? For example, diffs to the community ban discussion, ect? I don't even see how you would know about any of this if the supposed collaboration was in secret. SilverserenC 16:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Alright. SilverserenC 19:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Note that the IP is almost certainly banned user Mbz1 (talk · contribs). I'd strongly encourage you to remove her attacks on Demiurge from your page. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I always had good relations with Mbz1 when she was editing, but evading blocks to attack Wikipedians is not acceptable. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Post removed; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =543698903

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:56 am

tarantino wrote:Well, AGK has removed it from the spam blacklist, and is now working on adding a abuse filter that will prevent mentioning WO.

So... AGK is aiming to do for Wikipedia what Selina did for Wikipedia Review?

Brilliant.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:11 am

Yep because adding an abuse filter wasn't discussed in the vote that didn't pass. A pretty dirty tactic if you ask me.

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:08 pm

AGK's filter was denied/deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ab ... istory/537

Captain Occam · Unread post by **Captain Occam** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:49 pm

Most of you probably noticed this already, but there's a discussion about the edit filter here.

What was the timetable for this? If he continued working on the edit filter even after he was aware community consensus opposed him about adding Wikipediocracy to the spam blacklist, that's definitely a problem.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:55 pm

It's the other way around, he created the edit filter first then added to the blacklist a few minutes later. Covering all the bases?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:57 pm

Wow.

That's some asshattery on the part of the people questioning Black Kite.
They just CAN'T talk about the question asked, they have to pivot to talk about something else.

BlackKite: "Did AGK abuse his tools in this event?"

ArbX: "Buh, buh, what about doxxing?! Huh? Huh? You LIKE doxxing?! Huh? Huh?"

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:59 pm

(moved from the "Hersfold resigns" thread because it seems more relevant here)

DanMurphy wrote:naughty words like "wikipediocracy"

If I understand it right, the following link is now verboten within the mothership:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Russavia

A click will show why. One wonders how far the prohibition movement will go; will just mentioning that fact there earn a block, or even a desysopping now?

Captain Occam · Unread post by **Captain Occam** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:03 pm

Vigilant wrote:Wow.

That's some asshattery on the part of the people questioning Black Kite.
They just CAN'T talk about the question asked, they have to pivot to talk about something else.

BlackKite: "Did AGK abuse his tools in this event?"

ArbX: "Buh, buh, what about doxxing?! Huh? Huh? You LIKE doxxing?! Huh? Huh?"

I've seen this sort of thing before from Roger Davies. With him, it's about par for the course.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:06 pm

I have to admit, I used to be a big fan of Roger when he was over at Milhist. Always pleasant to work with and a good person to ask questions of. Since he has been in Arbcom though I have to say that the respect factor has been slipping. His decisions frequently don't make sense and several where down right wrong.

Captain Occam · Unread post by **Captain Occam** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:19 pm

Kumioko wrote:I have to admit, I used to be a big fan of Roger when he was over at Milhist. Always pleasant to work with and a good person to ask questions of. Since he has been in Arbcom though I have to say that the respect factor has been slipping. His decisions frequently don't make sense and several where down right wrong.

You might find SightWatcher's comment here informative. (Incidentally, as far as I know, Roger Davies never made any attempt to respond to these accusations about his mishandling of the R&I case.)

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:37 am

Moving off-topic posts.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:22 am

Scottywong, March 10, 2013:

For those unaware of the situation, some members of WO discovered who my employer was at the time and threatened to contact them in an attempt to get me fired.

Scottywong, January 9, 2013:

Anyone feel like doing a checkuser on that IP address to see what account(s) have used it?

I wonder if Scottywong knows that as a result of his snippy little comment on January 9, 2013, that somebody's employer was contacted, and somebody did lose their job? I'm not sure if Scottywong is the world's biggest hypocrite, or simply the world's biggest stooge.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:13 am

Yeah, that was bull where the person posted earlier that AGK's edits about breaking one's thoughts on a bipolar particular negative thought by thinking of the opposite seemed personal experience. One can read that in any book I'd imagine. What's going on though is interactions between this website and ArbCom. It seems really worried and overreacting and there is definitely some "Streisand Effect" occurring. It seems to me like AGK and just prior to him Hersfold got worried because of something not in public view. So Hersfold runs and AGK blacklists. I am against outing unless the outee has used anonymity to really impugn some real life person (or certainly if the wellbeing of children is reasonably, definably seen as threatened).

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:57 am

Triptych (bolding mine) wrote:Yeah, that was bull where the person posted earlier that AGK's edits about breaking one's thoughts on a bipolar particular negative thought by thinking of the opposite seemed personal experience. One can read that in any book I'd imagine. What's going on though is interactions between this website and ArbCom. It seems really worried and overreacting and there is definitely some "Streisand Effect" occurring. It seems to me like AGK and just prior to him Hersfold got worried because of something not in public view. So Hersfold runs and AGK blacklists. I am against outing unless the outee has used anonymity to really impugn some real life person (or certainly if the wellbeing of children is reasonably, definably seen as threatened).

That seemed a valid observation. The user was simply speculating.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:12 am

ScottyWong just restored Wikipediocracy to the blacklist, "per IAR"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =543709403

Didn't he try doing this over at Commons too?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:17 am

Volunteer Marek wrote:ScottyWong just restored Wikipediocracy to the blacklist, "per IAR"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =543709403

Didn't he try doing this over at Commons too?

Hey ScottW,

You might want to reconsider that given your editing patterns in the days of yore.
Also, I believe WP:INVOLVED might apply here. Time to put your ass up for a desysop.

Regards,
Vigilant

Funny, funny stuff being written here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =544230832

Frankly, I find opposes like this to be ridiculous. How do any of the examples in this oppose provide evidence that the candidate is not ready for adminship? We should be opposing only for valid concerns, not for personality quirks that you personally find slightly annoying. RfA is a simple application for a few additional tools, not a popularity contest or a political election. [[User:Scottywong]] 00:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:22 am

Just when you think they must be all out of stupid over there at Wikipedia, some kid brews up a fresh batch of the stuff.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:32 am

thekohser wrote:Just when you think they must be all out of stupid over there at Wikipedia, some kid brews up a fresh batch of the stuff.

It really does seem like some kind of grand conspiracy... to destroy Wikipedia from within. I'm reminded of a time my favorite "weird-oldies" radio station got bought out by someone who wanted to turn it into ye regular milktoast top 40 pop station. First thing they did after acquiring it is have a week of "Reports from roadside construction work", which was essentially broadcasting of jackhammers 24/7. They were letting the regular listeners know "leave, this isn't your place anymore" and cleaning the slate.

I dunno, you think they decided to sell Wikipedia off for scrap metal?

Edit: Or, as an alternative conspiracy theory (the amount of stupidity there invites it), maybe someone somewhere decided that it was time to clean up Wikipedia and the way to do it was to provoke a big ol' nasty fight with the "undesirables" which could then be used as an excuse for a cleansing.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:56 am

Wow, I thought this topic was all done with.

Oh well, guess I have a minor admin task to perform: link

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:06 am

All according to plan.

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:13 am

Snottywong wrote: I honestly don't care about the recent discussion on VP. The discussion almost exclusively involved Wikipediocracy regulars, so I don't consider it an unbiased consensus discussion. I wasn't aware of the blacklist talk page discussion, but I wouldn't be surprised if it mostly involved Wikipediocracy regulars as well. I could be wrong. I don't keep a list of who contributes to WO, and I don't read it regularly to know who is who

All those Wikipediocracy regulars that he can't identify. Perhaps he overlooked where Seren and the IRC crew fought valiantly for the blacklisting?

Snottywong wrote:apart from the editors who commented on the event that involved me.

Natch. This doesn't look like petty revenge at all.

Snottywong wrote: I'm not saying that any discussion that involves WO regulars is automatically voided.

He doesn't have to say it at all. Action speaks louder than words.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:37 pm

ScottW reverts himself on the blacklist
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =544364738

Those are 12 hours of sheer hell not being able to link to wikipediocracy...
The horror, the horror