Onomato Falsely Banned, Durova joins Team Liar Options

[Piperdown]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=158854802

Just noticed this laugher.

Hey, admins. Try running a checkuser for crying out loud.

I have never edited as anyone but Piperdown, and won't. Try going back to just banning anyone who edits NSS as "wordbomb", that's been working splendidly.


P.S. Day 33* of the Fred Bauder "Gary is editing with a conflict of interest" bombfest, all of Gary's socks still being harboured under wikimatic immuntity at the embassy.

*random number, look up actual on wordbomb's evidence site (you say attack, I say evidence, you say onomato, I say notpiper, let's call the whole thing boolsh*t...)

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Thu 27th September 2007, 4:10am

[alienus]

Congratulations and welcome to the club.

It's only a matter of time before banned users are turned into excuses for banning innocent people under the pretext of them being sock puppets. This method offers all the benefits of a permaban with none of the effort, so it's a favorite among corrupt admins all over Wikipedia.

Al

[Kato]

Wow. This is getting really strange.

As much as I find this Wordbomb/Byrne angle a bit baffling, the fact that it is now causing administrators to run around like headless chickens as the 'pedia crumbles around them is something to behold.

They're edging ever closer to a media showdown as the bigger journos will start sniffing this story. It certainly has enough legs. And it should soon become apparent that Durova and others are inadvertently supporting a particular position espoused by one of their own on WP, and are suppressing those with increasingly credible alternative positions. Again, the usual suspects are at the root of it, some of them are probably aware, others are not.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/09/17/ap4125807.html

If they continue to deal with this in the current manner, then forsee another major WP media crisis. Whether Wordbomb and Byrne are justified or not is another matter, but they are playing WP, and - as we could have told those kiddie admins long ago - WP simply doesn't have the structure in place to cope.

[Piperdown]

Wow. This is getting really strange.

As much as I find this Wordbomb/Byrne angle a bit baffling, the fact that it is now causing administrators to run around like headless chickens as the 'pedia crumbles around them is something to behold.

They're edging ever closer to a media showdown as the bigger journos will start sniffing this story. It certainly has enough legs. And it should soon become apparent that Durova and others are inadvertently supporting a particular position espoused by one of their own on WP, and are suppressing those with increasingly credible alternative positions. Again, the usual suspects are at the root of it, some of them are probably aware, others are not.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/09/17/ap4125807.html

If they continue to deal with this in the current manner, then forsee another major WP media crisis. Whether Wordbomb and Byrne are justified or not is another matter, but they are playing WP, and - as we could have told those kiddie admins long ago - WP simply doesn't have the structure in place to cope.

I think you've got who's playing who backwards. Take a long look (as I did after getting some really weird vibes from Gary's sockshow in March, immediately after I dared rewrite NSS - even allowing Weiss to keep an entire paragraph on the apologetic vigilante-ism from his book in it - to something resembling a balanced article reflecting all sides of the issues and using reliable sources, not one-sided "Byrne's Crazy!" soundbites from the wikiwagon circlers around Byrne's suit defendants).

I took a long look and discovered it's not Overstock or Byrne that started the NSS wikiwar, it started as Weiss vs "TheSanityCheck.com" "meatpuppets". I would guess that many of the doughboys who have gone over the top of the NSS trench are readers of that site, and Weiss was tasked to fend off the onslaught starting in 2006. He was quite successful with friendly ghosts jajyg and slimmy, even while many such as Cla68 took collateral damage (and I'd like to think myself as well).

Sources of disgruntled stock traders/players/etc that are ripe sources for past/current/future wordpiperbombs:

TheSanityCheck.com readers
Antisocialmedia.net readers
Stock players from the following stocks:
OSTK....(of course)
NFI ...(the Sanitycheck guys seemed to have sprung from that well)
DNDN.... (me, at one time, and now dozens of folks that got turned onto NSS after getting on the Reg SHO list - myself I saw Byrne on "phantom shares", a bloomberg TV show, and started googling! - there are some really pissed off DNDN people looking into NSS)
TASR....appears to have been a similar story to OSTK, but CEO's kept shut about it publicly it looks
BVF....Biovail - this was on 60 minutes, in a twin legal case - same players - as Byrne's thing

There's probably dozens more stocks, some prominent, that are ripe for the drafting of disgruntled doughboys. The SEC comments site has hundreds of letters from them on NSS.

Then there's hordes of pennystock (many no doubt scams, and actually affirming Gary's stance, ironicallly) schiesters riding on the wagon I'm sure.

I just agree with SEC head cheese Christopher Cox (I had a tough time getting Gary to even allow his quotes in the article, ironically), that NSS is a problem and the SEC has it's glaciers working on it. Sometimes. But the expert(s) owning that article think the sheriff is wrong and the vigilantes (who rob and loot civilians while running down CEO evildoers!) are in the right, no matter who gets strafed.

Wordbomb was late to the party from the editing history I see, but oh what a day that must have been when he did edit it, because Team Liar has been suffering shell shock ever since.

I'm still waiting for Slimmy to explain on WP how her outing/banning of Sparkzilla is any different that any other COI investigation of wikipedia editors - if the facts unveil a COI, who cares whether the investigator has a wikibadge or not?

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Wed 26th September 2007, 9:45pm

[Jonny Cache]

{{¡¡¡ I Have No Template But I Must Scream !!!}}

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 26th September 2007, 9:28pm

[Piperdown]

{{¡¡¡ I Have No Template But I Must Scream !!!}}

Jonny

Huh? (I bet you get that a lot, apologies in advance.

Extremely cool avatar, Ok, I just noticed the WP:NOR photoshopping of Johnny's placard. That is mos' def the #1 avatar. Perhaps someone can do something similar to another famous early mugshot, the Hoboken Sinatra one.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Wed 26th September 2007, 9:57pm

[Joseph100]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Onomato

Just noticed this laugher.

Hey, admins. Try running a checkuser for crying out loud.

I have never edited as anyone but Piperdown, and won't. Try going back to just banning anyone who edits NSS as "wordbomb", that's been working splendidly.


P.S. Day 33* of the Fred Bauder "Gary is editing with a conflict of interest" bombfest, all of Gary's socks still being harboured under wikimatic immuntity at the embassy.

*random number, look up actual on wordbomb's evidence site (you say attack, I say evidence, you say onomato, I say notpiper, let's call the whole thing boolsh*t...)

Check user... WE DON'T need NO STINKING CHECKUSERS

Two shots and the Bomb drops

This post has been edited by Joseph100: Wed 26th September 2007, 9:39pm

[Jonny Cache]

{{¡¡¡ I Have No Template But I Must Scream !!!}}

Jonny

Huh? (I bet you get that a lot, apologies in advance.

Extremely cool avatar, btw, a close 2nd behind Lamont's.

Just an Ellisonesque way of saying that this NSS-stuff has gone viral and needs to isolated to its own roll-up chamber before WR becomes as batty as WP.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 26th September 2007, 9:42pm

[GlassBeadGame]

{{¡¡¡ I Have No Template But I Must Scream !!!}}

Jonny

Huh? (I bet you get that a lot, apologies in advance.

Extremely cool avatar, btw, a close 2nd behind Lamont's.

Just an Ellisonesque way of saying that this NSS-stuff has gone viral and needs to isolated to its own roll-up chamber before WR becomes as batty as WP.

Jonny

The Cyber-Hillbilly Avatar wins hand down. He shot a man in Reno just to watch him die after all.

[Piperdown]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Onomato

Just noticed this laugher.

Hey, admins. Try running a checkuser for crying out loud.

I have never edited as anyone but Piperdown, and won't. Try going back to just banning anyone who edits NSS as "wordbomb", that's been working splendidly.


P.S. Day 33* of the Fred Bauder "Gary is editing with a conflict of interest" bombfest, all of Gary's socks still being harboured under wikimatic immuntity at the embassy.

*random number, look up actual on wordbomb's evidence site (you say attack, I say evidence, you say onomato, I say notpiper, let's call the whole thing boolsh*t...)

Check user... WE DON'T need NO STINKING CHECKUSERS

Two shots and the Bomb drops

you lost me, who's Mr Drumsticks ?

{{¡¡¡ I Have No Template But I Must Scream !!!}}

Jonny

Huh? (I bet you get that a lot, apologies in advance.

Extremely cool avatar, btw, a close 2nd behind Lamont's.

Just an Ellisonesque way of saying that this NSS-stuff has gone viral and needs to isolated to its own roll-up chamber before WR becomes as batty as WP.

Jonny

You're right, let's get back to Charles Pierce ;-)

Really though, with the current WikiCrisis going on, it's all about Team SlimJayGary, and what the Fred saw.

So you're going to have a hard time getting the peanut gallery back to Charles Pierce. Even Martin Luther would be a better NSS diversion at this point for the focus du jour.

[Joseph100]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Onomato

Just noticed this laugher.

Hey, admins. Try running a checkuser for crying out loud.

I have never edited as anyone but Piperdown, and won't. Try going back to just banning anyone who edits NSS as "wordbomb", that's been working splendidly.


P.S. Day 33* of the Fred Bauder "Gary is editing with a conflict of interest" bombfest, all of Gary's socks still being harboured under wikimatic immuntity at the embassy.

*random number, look up actual on wordbomb's evidence site (you say attack, I say evidence, you say onomato, I say notpiper, let's call the whole thing boolsh*t...)

Check user... WE DON'T need NO STINKING CHECKUSERS

Two shots and the Bomb drops

you lost me, who's Mr Drumsticks ?

{{¡¡¡ I Have No Template But I Must Scream !!!}}

Jonny

Huh? (I bet you get that a lot, apologies in advance.

Extremely cool avatar, btw, a close 2nd behind Lamont's.

Just an Ellisonesque way of saying that this NSS-stuff has gone viral and needs to isolated to its own roll-up chamber before WR becomes as batty as WP.

Jonny

You're right, let's get back to Charles Pierce ;-)

Really though, with the current WikiCrisis going on, it's all about Team SlimJayGary, and what the Fred saw.

So you're going to have a hard time getting the peanut gallery back to Charles Pierce. Even Martin Luther would be a better NSS diversion at this point for the focus du jour.

Mr. Drumstick was someone that got banned, due to being a Republican

[Piperdown]

Congratulations and welcome to the club.

It's only a matter of time before banned users are turned into excuses for banning innocent people under the pretext of them being sock puppets. This method offers all the benefits of a permaban with none of the effort, so it's a favorite among corrupt admins all over Wikipedia.

Al

Avid WR reader Ryulong (voted most likely to pull a Va. Tech by his Miami classmates) has decided to call Onomato a "wordbomb" instead of a piperdown.

Of course I don't think an acutal checkuser came into it. Ryulong's just fair that way. What a WP:CLOWN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

Looks like "G-dett" called Ryulong on his boolsh*t

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=160985876

G-dett's edetts make way too much sense on WP. I'd wager he's right behind Cla68 on the "Excellent Editors We'd Like to Frag" list kept up by Major Burns and Hotlips Houlihan while Col Blake's away (god, ED is terrible, but that part was pure genius).

It's official. Ryulong has declared, under G-dett questioning, that ANYONE WHO DARES EDIT THE SAME ARTICLES AS MANTANMORELAND AND SAMIHARRIS is bannable. As a wordbomb or piperdown or whatever works for you.

Ryulong's adminstration is a shining example of wikibrilliance. Or something.

..and Moe Epsilon, Pro Wrestling Afficianado (enough said), tag teams for Power Rangers Expert Ryulong by pulling the ol' REDIRECT, so you won't see anything done by Ryulong wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=160569478

...and Moe's a WR fan too (golly, do WP'ians read WR more than they do WP? I think so), as he didn't appreciate my appreciation of his large sweaty male actor wrestling penchants.

Hey, they banned me for nothing, so I'm going to give them a reason to now on WR.

WP did not want to hear about COI of their beloved first-hand, so they're going to hear about it second hand. And third hand. And reliable source hand.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Sat 29th September 2007, 1:00am

[blissyu2]

Accusing someone of being a sock of a banned user is a good way to get the ban made, and not even checked in to seriously, whilst making you look good.

[guy]

and Moe Epsilon, Pro Wrestling Afficianado (enough said), tag teams for Power Rangers Expert Ryulong by pulling the ol' REDIRECT, so you won't see anything done by Ryulong wrong

He doesn't just do that for Ryulong - he'll do it to any falsely banned editor. He seems to have a nose for these things.

[alienus]

Right, this isn't specifically about Ryulong.

Instead, it's just another example of how paranoid and hostile Wikipedia is. Having removed editors with unwanted views, they now use the unsupported claim of sock puppeting to likewise remove any other editors who come along with similar views. In effect, this lets them ban an entire viewpoint!

This technique represents a huge organizational advance. Previously, this level of control was accomplished on owned articles using a group of admins who find new and different ways to abuse and persecute the various newcomers who make the mistake of correcting bias. A good example was Jayjg's pet Circumcision articles, where each one of the many permabans had its own RFC with somewhat distinct and specific reasoning. Sure, this worked, but it was tedious and required using lackey admins, like Nandesuka, to carry some of the load.

Obviously, we've come a long way from the bad old days when some semblance of due process stood in the way of admin power. The new Wikipedia makes admin corruption painless (for the corrupt admin). Ultimately, until there is some way to curb the power of admins (and arbcoms and the rest) and replace it with an effective dispute resolution mechanism, none of the PR-motivated changes to WP will have any positive effect on article quality.

Al

[Joseph100]

Right, this isn't specifically about Ryulong.

Instead, it's just another example of how paranoid and hostile Wikipedia is. Having removed editors with unwanted views, they now use the unsupported claim of sock puppeting to likewise remove any other editors who come along with similar views. In effect, this lets them ban an entire viewpoint!

This technique represents a huge organizational advance. Previously, this level of control was accomplished on owned articles using a group of admins who find new and different ways to abuse and persecute the various newcomers who make the mistake of correcting bias. A good example was Jayjg's pet Circumcision articles, where each one of the many permabans had its own RFC with somewhat distinct and specific reasoning. Sure, this worked, but it was tedious and required using lackey admins, like Nandesuka, to carry some of the load.

Obviously, we've come a long way from the bad old days when some semblance of due process stood in the way of admin power. The new Wikipedia makes admin corruption painless (for the corrupt admin). Ultimately, until there is some way to curb the power of admins (and arbcoms and the rest) and replace it with an effective dispute resolution mechanism, none of the PR-motivated changes to WP will have any positive effect on article quality.

Al

Here is just one of many example of this here Have a KFC Fried Noobie ...Wikipeidan style

[GlassBeadGame]

Obviously, we've come a long way from the bad old days when some semblance of due process stood in the way of admin power. The new Wikipedia makes admin corruption painless (for the corrupt admin). Ultimately, until there is some way to curb the power of admins (and arbcoms and the rest) and replace it with an effective dispute resolution mechanism, none of the PR-motivated changes to WP will have any positive effect on article quality.

Al

This is a good summary of the situation. One additional piece fills it out completely, I think. This level of abuse and corruption exists in the context of a deeply dysfunction social networking environment that is part and parcel of WP. Such an environment will thwart and frustrate any attempt at reform. No new rules or policies can fix this problem. It will take a completely new successor organization.