Raul654 Threatens To BlackList Wikitruth.Info Options

[ownage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikitrut...ng_notification

[blissyu2]

Pellegrini's playing dumb, as if he didn't realize that Sherlock and Freddy are part of wikitruth.info.

On reading the comments there, there is a pressing point to suggest that both Ta Bu Shi Da Yu (please use their Wikipedia names to avoid confusion) and Grace Note are affiliated with Wikitruth. However, I am not going to discount the idea that Raul654 is too. Raul654 certainly objects to WP:OFFICE in a big way. I get the feeling that a number of members of Wikitruth are in fact in the cabal, and that it is in a lot of ways their way of finally getting even more power than they have already. And if it is indeed the cabal that is behind Wikitruth, then god help Wikipedia. They are doomed either way. Maybe David Gerard wasn't as silly as it sounded. But then again David Gerard's bullying of critics is what makes it unlikely. Same for Eloquence and Sean Black. But as for someone like Snowspinner, who likes a joke and a bit of abuse of power with his coffee, well, I wouldn't put it past him. Snowspinner doesn't mind criticising Wikipedia, as we all saw here. I wouldn't be surprised if either Raul654 or Snowspinner was the person running the whole site.

[sapp]

Pellegrini's playing dumb, as if he didn't realize that Sherlock and Freddy are part of wikitruth.info.

On reading the comments there, there is a pressing point to suggest that both Ta Bu Shi Da Yu (please use their Wikipedia names to avoid confusion) and Grace Note are affiliated with Wikitruth. However, I am not going to discount the idea that Raul654 is too. Raul654 certainly objects to WP:OFFICE in a big way. I get the feeling that a number of members of Wikitruth are in fact in the cabal, and that it is in a lot of ways their way of finally getting even more power than they have already. And if it is indeed the cabal that is behind Wikitruth, then god help Wikipedia. They are doomed either way. Maybe David Gerard wasn't as silly as it sounded. But then again David Gerard's bullying of critics is what makes it unlikely. Same for Eloquence and Sean Black. But as for someone like Snowspinner, who likes a joke and a bit of abuse of power with his coffee, well, I wouldn't put it past him. Snowspinner doesn't mind criticising Wikipedia, as we all saw here. I wouldn't be surprised if either Raul654 or Snowspinner was the person running the whole site.

I think you are being too obsessed with a small group of people. There about 800 admins that could be behind it. You can be sure that a lot of them have got pissed at Wikipedia.

[Avillia]

He did add it, and I appluad him for doing so.

[blissyu2]

To me, "wikitruth.info" is nothing more than a fancy name for The Wikipedia Report.

Nods. As run by the cabal with the help of a few "critics" who agree to go along with the cabal. Its the cabal boasting about being the cabal, and how they will overthrow Wikipedia.

And yes, it should be blacklisted. Let's be sensible here. And Wikipedia should sue their butts. If they have the guts to do it.

[Lir]

Uh, I disagree; I think its pretty absurd to argue that this site should not be blacklisted, and wikitruth should -- what the hell is wrong with wikitruth?

[kotepho]

The reasoning was that wikitruth republishes the content that might be deleted for libel. Personally, I think blacklisting the site is fine if it wasn't on spam blacklist (only for spammed links, spread to all sites that use the extension).

[ownage]

The reasoning was that wikitruth republishes the content that might be deleted for libel.

It has nothing to do with libel and 100% has to do with Wikipedia's e-government want to censor the url. Wikipedia has articles that link to KKK websites and Neo-Nazi websites, they want to blacklist those too?

[Lir]

It has nothing to do with libel and 100% has to do with Wikipedia's e-government want to censor the url.

Yah, libel is the excuse, but the real reason is that the Wiki cabal doesn't like criticism; sure, they put up with criticism from outsiders, because those people's arguments can be rejected due to a lack of personal involvement -- however, criticism from Wikipedians is much more damning, and thats why they go out of their way to claim that such criticism only comes from trolls and hoaxes.

[blissyu2]

I think it should be black listed. Maybe we should do a poll. I am not sure if it will be black listed though. There is politics involved, and it depends on how they push their weight around. If the Wikitruth members manage to push their weight around in the right way, it won't be black listed. But of course, if it is, then they can claim censorship, and get more support for them. So they might want it to be black listed.

[guy]

No point in having a poll here - who's going to agree with us?

[Ta bu shi da yu]

Pellegrini's playing dumb, as if he didn't realize that Sherlock and Freddy are part of wikitruth.info.

On reading the comments there, there is a pressing point to suggest that both Ta Bu Shi Da Yu (please use their Wikipedia names to avoid confusion) and Grace Note are affiliated with Wikitruth. However, I am not going to discount the idea that Raul654 is too. Raul654 certainly objects to WP:OFFICE in a big way. I get the feeling that a number of members of Wikitruth are in fact in the cabal, and that it is in a lot of ways their way of finally getting even more power than they have already. And if it is indeed the cabal that is behind Wikitruth, then god help Wikipedia. They are doomed either way. Maybe David Gerard wasn't as silly as it sounded. But then again David Gerard's bullying of critics is what makes it unlikely. Same for Eloquence and Sean Black. But as for someone like Snowspinner, who likes a joke and a bit of abuse of power with his coffee, well, I wouldn't put it past him. Snowspinner doesn't mind criticising Wikipedia, as we all saw here. I wouldn't be surprised if either Raul654 or Snowspinner was the person running the whole site.

Ta bu shi da yu is affiliated with Wikitruth? I thought that you said that the Wikipedia Review inner circle knew who they were!

You crazy kids.

Just remember Blissy, it's not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you.

TBSDY

[Donny]

Ta bu shi da yu is affiliated with Wikitruth? I thought that you said that the Wikipedia Review inner circle knew who they were!

I don't know if the Wikipedia Review inner circle knows who they are or not, but given enough time, effort and skill, I don't think it would be that hard to track down who they were. Starting points include: images on their site: check the images for identifying information embedded in them. Writing style: check the writing style of the people involved. For example, choose unusual vocabulary, spelling mistakes that they make, etc., and cross-reference it with the Wikipedia site using Google. The writing styles of some of the Wikitruth writers are fairly distinctive. Opinions: the people involved in Wikitruth have probably expressed the same opinions they're presenting on their web site on Wikipedia pages. I'd start by looking at the votes for deletion pages for the deleted articles they reproduce. The technofix of trying to find out which admins accessed logs is not available to us, but other things might include mailing them a link to a "trap" web page, then examining the server logs for IP addresses of any visitors.

This is just a few ideas, there are lots more things one could do. Basically it would take a lot of time but it should be possible to track these people down. Most wikipedians are too stupid to be able to do it effectively, though.

[blissyu2]

Don't forget: Who has ever called Wikipedia Review "a neo nazi troll site"?

Slim Virgin
Grace Note

end

[Selina]

Don't forget: Who has ever called Wikipedia Review "a neo nazi troll site"?

Slim Virgin
Grace Note

end

wikitruth doesn't call it that last time I saw it O-o

[Donny]

Don't forget: Who has ever called Wikipedia Review "a neo nazi troll site"?

Slim Virgin
Grace Note

end

wikitruth doesn't call it that last time I saw it O-o

They deleted the article on Wikipedia Review but I seem to remember that was the opinion expressed.

[Selina]

hmmz maybe Grace Note is behind it then.

[blissyu2]

They didn't delete the article. It was in "Press Reports". Lane wrote it, then Seek deleted it, and deleted from history old revisions. So much for no censorship, they did it then.

For some reason, they really didn't want people to know that they'd called this site "a bunch of neo nazi trolls".

Because Seek likes this site?

Or because then we'd know who they were?