Maybe she'll give you a Lewinsky, after you wipe your santorum off her ass Options

[Tarc]

A good or clever sock, however, would not have used such sophisticated edit summaries within in the first few edits, as Kiwi had. I'm not sure why most socks don't understand that. I mean, unless you are expecting to only use the account for a week or so before abandoning it, then at least make a better attempt at disguising your experience.

People are rarely as clever as they believe themselves to be, though. The technical side of socking is something any 2nd rate /b/-tard could do, but changing one's behavioral style, mannerisms, etc...is an entirely trickier game.

Kiwi's got quite a fixation on Monica's family it seems, as we're onto an AfD about dear ol dad now; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Lewinsky (T-H-L-K-D)

[Milton Roe]

I think Gacurr is probably Benjiboi, but I could be wrong.

My thought as well, when some clod gave me a "tsk tsk, don't bite the newbies" warning after I got on Gacurr's case a few weeks ago.

Wikipedia only bites ACTUAL newbies, like Wordbomb.

We have Gerrard on Arbcomm saying essentially: well, Weiss and Bagley, both caught socking and both banned and another day in WP.

Except there's a problem: Weiss was an old hand and knew better. At the time, Bagley didn't. And also, his cause was a lot better. Slim ignored all that since Bagley was trying (clumsily) to protest about Weiss's socking, control of articles, and COI. Nobody believed him, or nobody cared.

And there's the problem with Wikipedia. If somebody had listened to Bagley when he showed up, and explained the rules, and initiated an investigation, they've had saved themselves endless pain, and Slim would probably still be anonymous! But no. She just had to step on the guy. And it cost her dearly.

Well, when you treat other people like that, you get a stinger in your foot. It's happening to Jimbo, and it will happen to Gerard. Karma. It's already happened to Weiss. In fact, Arbcomm eventually helped in THAT one. LOL.

[carbuncle]

A good or clever sock, however, would not have used such sophisticated edit summaries within in the first few edits, as Kiwi had. I'm not sure why most socks don't understand that. I mean, unless you are expecting to only use the account for a week or so before abandoning it, then at least make a better attempt at disguising your experience.

I doubt someone whose name is an anagram of "wikibomb" and whose first efforts are to create the mirror image of the santorum article is really trying to fly under the radar. I suspect that it will not be possible for that article to get the top Google ranking for Lewinsky, but it is already number one for "lewinsky euphemism" according to my search...

[Ron Ritzman]

I doubt someone whose name is an anagram of "wikibomb" and whose first efforts are to create the mirror image of the santorum article is really trying to fly under the radar.

Which supports my "trollz and lulz" hypothesis. He drops a "wikibomb" and then sits back and laughs at the explosion of drama. This is a WP version of the Flame Warriors grenade.

This post has been edited by Ron Ritzman: Tue 5th July 2011, 2:26pm

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kiw...locked_again.3F

They couldn't find a way to block his account, so the Wikipedians found alternative means to force her or him off the wiki.

Perhaps it's too early to make a call, but Kiwi_Bomb haven't made a revision since July 7th, so I'm assuming they succeeded in making Kiwi_Bomb's experience at Wikipedia miserable to the point that she or he finally gave up.

[Tarc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kiw...locked_again.3F

They couldn't find a way to block his account, so the Wikipedians found alternative means to force her or him off the wiki.

Bullshit. Kiwi has the option to not use a blacklisted Hong Kong server...but we all kknow that if he logged in with his real IP, it'd be connected to whoever his real ID is.

Perhaps it's too early to make a call, but Kiwi_Bomb haven't made a revision since July 7th, so I'm assuming they succeeded in making Kiwi_Bomb's experience at Wikipedia miserable to the point that she or he finally gave up.

Do you still believe at this point that "Kiwi Bomb" was a legitimately new user who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

His name is a thinly-veiled anagram for "wikibomb", an essay coined in the wake of the santorum wars. He creates an article called "Lewinsky (neologism)" which all but screams as a shout-out to santorum. The SPI comes up clean, but then we find he was logging in from a blacklisted box on a Hong Kong ISP.

Seriously Mike, remove your head from your ass and wake the fuck up.

And if you didn't notice what he's been upto the last few days, then you missed the AN/I discussion about the Wikialpha, a MediaWiki site that was bot-mailing editors that their articles were being culled from the AfD logs and preserved. Some editors such as Mathewignash, a Transformers otaku so pathetic that even tfwiki ran him out on a rail, have found a comfy haven there. And your poor soul Kiwi wasted no time in recreating the Lewinsky page there, too.

[carbuncle]

Do you still believe at this point that "Kiwi Bomb" was a legitimately new user who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

His name is a thinly-veiled anagram for "wikibomb", an essay coined in the wake of the santorum wars. He creates an article called "Lewinsky (neologism)" which all but screams as a shout-out to santorum. The SPI comes up clean, but then we find he was logging in from a blacklisted box on a Hong Kong ISP.

And everyone sees that what Cirt did with the santorum article was a bad, bad thing. They ban Cirt, delete both articles, formulate a strategy for dealing with future wikibombs, and everyone lives happily ever after. No? That isn't how this story ends? Why not?

[Tarc]

Do you still believe at this point that "Kiwi Bomb" was a legitimately new user who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

His name is a thinly-veiled anagram for "wikibomb", an essay coined in the wake of the santorum wars. He creates an article called "Lewinsky (neologism)" which all but screams as a shout-out to santorum. The SPI comes up clean, but then we find he was logging in from a blacklisted box on a Hong Kong ISP.

And everyone sees that what Cirt did with the santorum article was a bad, bad thing. They ban Cirt, delete both articles, formulate a strategy for dealing with future wikibombs, and everyone lives happily ever after. No? That isn't how this story ends? Why not?

Most people agree with the anti-santorum message, is the problem there. As I noted earlier, if Glenn Beck called the frothy mixture of cocaine and semen an "obamalama", the resulting article wouldn't last a minute.


This post has been edited by Tarc: Mon 11th July 2011, 3:33am

[Michaeldsuarez]

And if you didn't notice what he's been upto the last few days, then you missed the AN/I discussion about the Wikialpha, a MediaWiki site that was bot-mailing editors that their articles were being culled from the AfD logs and preserved. Some editors such as Mathewignash, a Transformers otaku so pathetic that even tfwiki ran him out on a rail, have found a comfy haven there. And your poor soul Kiwi wasted no time in recreating the Lewinsky page there, too.

http://en.wikialpha.org/wiki?title=Special...ser%3AKiwi_Bomb

Kiwi_Bomb went to WikiAlpha only after being chased off by a mob carrying ready to lynch. Just most Americans refuse to believe in the possibility of Casey Anthony's innocence, Wikipedians refuse to believe in the possibility of Kiwi_Bomb's innocence.

http://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedi...nt_of_WikiAlpha

Oh dear, WikiAlpha doesn't sound all that good. They also publish everything under the public domain rather than more protective licenses such as CC-BY-SA:

Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the Work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not yet been invented or conceived.

There isn't any guarantee of attribution, and there isn't any guarantee that changelogs and page histories would be preserved or even linked to. Authors beware.

[Tarc]

Kiwi_Bomb went to WikiAlpha only after being chased off by a mob carrying ready to lynch. Just most Americans refuse to believe in the possibility of Casey Anthony's innocence, Wikipedians refuse to believe in the possibility of Kiwi_Bomb's innocence.

"Not guilty" vs. "she murdered her child but there isn't enough evidence for a conviction".

Not quite the same thing.




This post has been edited by Tarc: Mon 11th July 2011, 12:57pm

[Abd]

And if you didn't notice what he's been upto the last few days, then you missed the AN/I discussion about the Wikialpha, a MediaWiki site that was bot-mailing editors that their articles were being culled from the AfD logs and preserved.

That is such a great example of "I'm in charge here! You WILL do as I say!" -- from Ironholds.

"No. You will not notify editors that their contributions have been hosted on Wikialpha. I don't care if some of them want it. I don't care if it's useful to them."

Let me make it clear, because you obviously haven't grasped it yet. Wikipedia and its email functions do not exist to provide either a catalyst or a carrot to your project. If you attempt to use the email function, the talkpage function, data gathered on wikipedia, contact information gathered on wikipedia or anything else from wikipedia in what amounts to advertising for your website, whether it violates the letter of policy or not, I. Will. Block. You. If anyone else does it, I will block them too. If it keeps happening we'll checkuser them, block all the accounts, and so on and so forth until you get the hint. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Mmmmm.... I wonder how far they will go. If Wikialpha has a user base, if it's more than one person, this could get ... interesting.

The idea of a "deletion space" for Wikipedia is an old one. I proposed it years ago (I called it "junkyard space," and the only thing excluded from it would be illegal content, stuff would be moved there instead of deleted), and the basic idea wasn't new. There was deletionpedia, as I recall. If a project like this gets a user based, like more than one person who actually maintains it, it could be quite helpful. The idea that you have to be an admin to read a deleted article is nuts.

Would I want to know if an article I'd written was hosted at Wikialpha? Sure, I would. I can't imagine anyone that would not to know, unless a deletionist who was emailed only because of the AfD tag placed!

However, it would be best if the notifications were simply on-wiki. That's what's crazy here. Instead of looking for how to cooperate, the wikipediots only think of one thing: control. An opt-out list was suggested. It might be opt-in, if that were properly publicized.

What Ironholds is asking for, I'd say, is a campaign. Where do I sign up? Seems he'd like to push his block button a few times, or a few hundred thousand times with range blocks. I got lots-o-range to contribute. I'll check out wikialpha.

Should someone who cares about Wikipedia tell Ironholds that daring people to edit Wikipedia "disruptively," by threatening them, tends to cause the behavior?

How many emails can a mailbot send before being detected? I'm curious. Anyone know?

I suspect they are emailing because they can get more messages out before detection than if they use on-wiki notification.

[lilburne]

The State has vast resources, if they can't provide convincing evidence of guilt then maybe there isn't any.

[carbuncle]

Wikialpha doesn't seem to be very active at all. I don't think the copy of Lewinsky (neologism) is going to be a problem, since Google can't even find it yet with "lewinsky+(neologism)+site:en.wikialpha.org". Since Wikialpha will have copies of WP articles, Google is likely to treat them as a scraper site and lower their ranking in the results.

I did find something interesting at Wikialpha, though.

• 14:16 Kiwi Bomb account created
• 14:21 Lewinsky (neologism) article created
• 14:28 Lewinsky redirect created
• 14:33 Wikilulz account created
• 14:33 Wikilulz replaces Lewinsky (neologism) with "DISREGARD THIS, KIWI SUCKS COCK"
• 14:35 Wikilulz replaces Lewinsky with "DISREGARD THIS, KIWI SUCKS COCK"
• 14:35+ Wikilulz goes on a small spree of replacing the content of other articles with "DELETED ARTICLE IS DELETED"
• 14:42 Wikilulz uploads an image (now deleted so I don't know what it was)
• 14:43 Wikilulz returns to Lewinsky (neologism) to place the image there
• 14:44 Wikilulz gets blocked

Wow, less than 15 minutes after the lewinsky article is created and someone from WP has already shown up to mess with it. I wonder which honourable Wikipedian was waiting for the chance to do that? Tarc?

[Tarc]

Yes, it was me. I also shot JFK, spiked Jim Morrison's coke with heroin, and Jimmy Hoffa's jawbone is hanging over my mantle.

But my most shameful confession is from the 3rd grade, Miss Goldwin's class. After all this time, I can finally bring myself to admit that I

I

I stole the cookie from the cookie jar.

[lilburne]

Article gone bye byes.

[Somey]

I also shot JFK, spiked Jim Morrison's coke with heroin, and Jimmy Hoffa's jawbone is hanging over my mantle.

I knew it! You naughty person, you!

Just to add my $0.02, I can't see the harm in these Wikialpha/"Deletopedia" notifications either, as long as there's an opt-out function. Obviously it would be better for all concerned if Wikialpha didn't exist, but the same could be said for Wikipedia too, so...

I suspect what they're really concerned about, or at least what the more clever and forward-thinking WP'ers (assuming there ever were any to begin with) are concerned about, is that if the existence of Wikialpha were to become widely known, newer WP users would write fewer new articles. New article topics are becoming an increasingly rare commodity as it is, so that would be just one more thing that might drive such people off.

[Abd]

Just to add my $0.02, I can't see the harm in these Wikialpha/"Deletopedia" notifications either, as long as there's an opt-out function. Obviously it would be better for all concerned if Wikialpha didn't exist, but the same could be said for Wikipedia too, so...

I suspect what they're really concerned about, or at least what the more clever and forward-thinking WP'ers (assuming there ever were any to begin with) are concerned about, is that if the existence of Wikialpha were to become widely known, newer WP users would write fewer new articles. New article topics are becoming an increasingly rare commodity as it is, so that would be just one more thing that might drive such people off.

I doubt it. I think the concern is pretty straightforward, it's just that the thinking is narrow. The cabal doesn't want more traffic disturbing them, they don't need these notifications. Administrators can read the deleted articles anyway. No, they don't like Wikialpha et al partly because they think article creation will expand, with more non-notable articles, and the idea of all the deleted stuff being visible offends them.

The concern about email is legitimate. It's not spam, that was stupid. The question is really the same as regarding on-wiki notification of AfD. What would be thought about extensive email notification of that? I've never heard of it being done. It is "push" content and the cabal depends on fancruft editors not being on-line enough to notice the AfDs.

That's my silly theory, anyway.

The stuff about 'bots was a red herring. They were asked about individual users sending notifications. Horrors! No, we'll block anyone who touches this crazy idea!

Ironholds should see his bit challenged for his bluster. But anyone care to place a bet on that?

[Tarc]

I also shot JFK, spiked Jim Morrison's coke with heroin, and Jimmy Hoffa's jawbone is hanging over my mantle.

I knew it! You naughty person, you!

Just to add my $0.02, I can't see the harm in these Wikialpha/"Deletopedia" notifications either, as long as there's an opt-out function. Obviously it would be better for all concerned if Wikialpha didn't exist, but the same could be said for Wikipedia too, so...

The thing is, what is the purpose, the goal, the aim of such a project? Just like in politics when the ABB (Anyone But Bush) movement fizzled once John Kerry showed himself to be kindof a clod, one can only get so much mileage out of being simply contrary, the "we're what the Wikipedia isn't" shtick won't sustain interest for long.

Already it looks be little more than a wiki Island of Misfit Toys. Even Abd washed ashore today.

I suspect what they're really concerned about, or at least what the more clever and forward-thinking WP'ers (assuming there ever were any to begin with) are concerned about, is that if the existence of Wikialpha were to become widely known, newer WP users would write fewer new articles. New article topics are becoming an increasingly rare commodity as it is, so that would be just one more thing that might drive such people off.

My problem with it is that contentious, dubious articles that are deleted will be given a second life. Not Mr. Fanboy's Transformers masturbations, that's just something to make fun of, not to worry much about...but the Lewinsky neologisms, the porn starlets, all of Mila's Zionist propaganda articles, and so on.

What if someone resurrects the Daniel Brandt wikipedia article? Will WR's collective heads turn then?

This post has been edited by Tarc: Mon 11th July 2011, 11:29pm

[RMHED]

I think Gacurr is probably Benjiboi, but I could be wrong.

My thought as well, when some clod gave me a "tsk tsk, don't bite the newbies" warning after I got on Gacurr's case a few weeks ago.

Why do you care who Gacurr really is, does it really matter to you?

[Tarc]

I think Gacurr is probably Benjiboi, but I could be wrong.

My thought as well, when some clod gave me a "tsk tsk, don't bite the newbies" warning after I got on Gacurr's case a few weeks ago.

Why do you care who Gacurr really is, does it really matter to you?

Isn't over half of this forum pretty much devoted to outing real life identities in one manner or another? Whether it is Brandt hyperventilating over Wiki and Ed admins, Kohs tracking down Jimbo to trailer parks, the pages and pages of old discussion of who Jayjg and SV really are, to the current topic speculating on Wikileaker's id.