Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: blissyu2

From past experience, Wikipedia hates this forum, and will use any excuse to censor it out of Wikipedia, including banning anyone who posts here. They do not ban EVERYONE. They do not even ban everyone who posts here as a critic. However, it does greatly increase your chances of being banned if you post here using your real Wikipedia username. Since we don't want to see everyone get banned, and since we hate unfair bans, or for this forum to be the cause of some poor soul getting unfairly banned (or linked in any way to it) I think that we should recommend to people not to give your Wikipedia username. However, this is not for everyone.

If you are a banned user, and you want to protest your ban, it is a GOOD idea to say your Wikipedia username.

If you are someone who was otherwise seriously unfairly treated on Wikipedia (e.g. Nathan recently) then it is probably a half decent idea to say your Wikipedia username.

If you are someone who is here purely to destroy this forum or to bash critics, Wikipedia will probably love you, welcome you in to the cabal, give you a promotion, and so forth, if you say your Wikipedia username.

If you are a well-known critic (e.g. Matthew White, Andrew Orlowski, Daniel Brandt), then it is probably a good idea to say your real name, to identify yourself as such, but Wikipedia username probably not.

If you are an administrator, then it is probably fair enough for you to use your Wikipedia username. Thus far only one administrator has been desysopped purely for using this forum (Karmafist) and only one other had this as a part of the cause (Guanaco) - although actually he may hypothetically have been desysopped anyway. But you are generally fairly safe.

So if administrators want to come here to criticise Wikipedia, from our experience it is probably fairly safe for you to do so. For everyone else, well, its a bad idea.

Of course, its your choice whether to take this message to heed. For some, they would rather die for truth than live a lie. For people like that, hey, you may as well say who you are and go down for what you believe in.

Posted by: Selina

This is even more of a dangerous point taking this topic into light. Please read:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1323

Posted by: blissyu2

Yes. Not only are abusive Wikipedia admins and/or cabal members banning people for posting here, but they are now trying to make it policy.

Posted by: danielshays

I am ready to die for what I believe in, defending wildlife, freedom of speech and the right to defend it any possible ways, and fighting against inhuman monster machines.

It's gone past cabal stage and has been for a while. At the time they banned Merecat and thewolfstar was when they started to crack down. It is not a cabal anymore. It went from cabal or oligarchy to straight out dicatorship. At the very time we were banned, users were getting blocked and banned left and right. I am not afraid to say I am thewolfstar. That's my perogative. It doesn't matter anymore anyway. It is so easy to create other users, who cares. I keep posting my protests and defenses for a reason. I am working hard at shaking them up, which is easy cause they are a bunch of sleasy liars and they are also not very bright. They CAN be stopped. And it's important that they BE STOPPED.
This is way bigger than just Wikipedia. Daniel Brandt is right. Wikipedia and Google are in it together and Yahoo and MSN, also, are the biggest spreaders of lies and propanganda on the internet now. Searches are completely censored right now. Search for anything like religion and see what you come up with. Nothing but crap. If any of you think I am not thewolfstar, and I can understand paranoia and lack of trust, I learned it on Wikipedia, send me an email. <comments@earthhopenetwork.net> or <contact@earthhopenetwork.net> or <maggie@earthhopenetwork.net>

And listen to this. I have an email box <thewolfstar@gmail.com> and Google and Wikipedia are holding it hostage. I can't get into it no matter what I do. I had a bad feeling about it last night and sure as shit, this morning I couldn't access it no matter what I did. I told Google I'm going to sue them and I will. (I was having a war with Wikien-1 list admins and other assholes like J prasad who is a real sicko, and this email box was being used.

And Daniel Brandt, I know how we can sue them for sure. Are you interested? I need help with this battle. Don't worry, I know how to be discreet when I have to and I am walking softly in certain ways and when it is necessary. I didn't check my email yet. Be back. thewolfstar

Posted by: sgrayban

Uhh I'm confused why this is just a copy/paste and no comment.....

n/m he fixed it and added his comment.

Posted by: blissyu2

Since this post has been linked to a few places, I wanted to clarify a few things, on other people who were banned for posting here. I will start with the first that I know of, and work my way through.

Selina (Mistress Selina Kyle) - had been blocked 3 times prior to first using WR, all 3 were unfair, and was threatened with indef blocks. Posted here to complain about the unfair treatment, and got a 1 month block. Technically indef blocked for using an un-proven sock puppet account while blocked. Realistically, banned for using Wikipedia Review.

Blu Aardvark - was blocked for a week for some ridiculous reason, and during that week vandalised several Wikimedia projects, launched personal attacks galore and used dozens of sock puppets. For that stint used to protest the unfair 1 week block, he was banned indef. Realistically, banned for using Wikipedia Review.

Myself (Zordrac) - was my 2nd account (after Internodeuser) but not a sock puppet (i.e. was not used at the same time, they were fully 6 months apart, and was not used to evade the unfair 1 year block on internodeuser, which was for trying to present accurate information). Ambi threatened to ban me because I was pointing out corruption by Kelly Martin and Slim Virgin, in a precursor to the userbox dispute. The ban was indef but reduced to 3 days after protest by 100 or so admins that I was a good user with a long productive edit history (only one wanting the block was Ambi). This was changed after they did an internet search for Blissyu2 and found a post with me saying "I have used blissyu2, zordrac..." Since so few people (4 I think) have ever used zordrac, and not many have ever used blissyu2 I was banned for that. Basically, because I used this forum.

Vulturell was a good user on Wikipedia with an excellent track record, who was one of many who disagreed with the manner of Slim Virgin, Grace Note and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' editing on List of British Jews. He then posted here to talk about how awful it was. As a direct result, he was given an indefinite ban.

Herschellekrutofsky was the subject of an Arbitration ruling saying that he could not edit any LaRouche-related articles. He was not a banned user. As a direct resulting of posting here, the Arb Com case was altered to say that he would be banned for 1 year, even though he had done nothing on-wiki to breach the ban. He did however protest the ruling on Wikipedia Review.

...

I will also elaborate on the 2 admins that were desysopped...

Karmafist was posting here in support of Wikipedia Review when he was added to an Arbitration case involving the userbox wheel war. In spite of it being started by Kelly Martin, Snowspinner and Tony Sidaway, none of them had Arb Com cases against them, yet Karmafist did. Karmafist was one of 3 people desysopped over the subsequent "wheel war", and was the only one who, when he reapplied, did not succeed. The primary reason for "Oppose" votes was a link to a Wikipedia Review post where he criticised Wikipedia. In other words, he was banned for posting on WR.

Guanaco had an Arb Com case against him, and he talked about it on Wikipedia Review. As a direct result of him discussing it here, he was desysopped.

...

There are other cases, which I can pick up later. Please let me know if you think that any of what I said here is misleading or inaccurate, or if you can be bothered providing diffs for this. Unfortunately, some of the bans on WR posters happened because of old forum posts, and hence we can no longer provide evidence for them, other than people's memories of incidents.

Posted by: sgrayban

removed since it was out-of-order for this thread

Posted by: blissyu2

With all due respect, Sgrayban, this thread is for discussing people who were banned because of posting here. You were banned prior to posting here, so your case is not relevant to this thread. Some would suggest that my ban wasn't relevant either, since it depends on how you take it as to whether I was banned for posting here.

Posted by: sgrayban

removed my offending post

Posted by: blissyu2

Sorry, I wasn't having a go at you. It was a very unfair ban. However, you posting your Wikipedia username here had nothing to do with your being banned.

I tend to like to mention my ban a fair bit in here too. Its only natural really. Sometimes I even mention it when it probably isn't relevant.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

In the roughly two years since this thread was initiated, circumstances have changed. Due to the very substantial number of Wikipedia editors and admins who have joined the Review and post under their Wikipedia usernames, I would suggest that the danger, while not to be discounted, is not as dire as it once was. I am tempted to unpin this topic. What do others think? Is there safety in numbers?

Posted by: guy

I'm not rushing to reveal my WP name!

Posted by: The Joy

I fear the BADSITES crowd is rearing its ugly head again. Even other administrators are reluctant to mention WR on the Admin Noticeboards, I've noticed. I'm not revealing my WP name anytime soon.

Posted by: Somey

I agree - and remember, BADSITES didn't have to actually become policy. They really just had to create an atmosphere of suspicion and fear, so that people wouldn't post the hated links, and they were quite successful at that - still are, of course.

In fact, it was probably more in their interests that it didn't become policy, because now, when they're accused of BADSITES-derived censorship, they can just call any references to the de facto link-redaction policy a "strawman." And of course, they'll never publicly accept or admit that our refusal to impose a non-identification policy of our own, at this point, is a direct result of their refusal to impose meaningful and effective changes to their BLP policy.

Luckily, the site doesn't seem to have suffered much from the reduction in incoming links from WP. If anything, it probably enhances our credibility...