The latest excuses for bad behavior of Wikipedia admins have been entered into the record. Not only has the IP address 86.131.103.166 been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia, but 86.131.103.166 cannot even make any further unblock requests because the User talk page for 86.131.103.166 has been semi-protected.

Here's the unblock request:



and the reply:



So the reason doesn't actually matter because I am somehow "affiliated in some way with Bagley" (and I haven't even seen the ring). It matters not what that "affilation" may be, only that it can be asserted without proof.

Pathetic.

Franz Kafka never had a nightmare bad enough to compare with Wikipedia.

Hmm, we might have found the "golden loophole" that will allow us to have anyone we disklike banned from WP for good!

Let's see, who's first... Ooh, I know. I heard a rumor just the other day that User:JoshuaZ was the best man at the wedding of the sister of one of Judd Bagley's sister's sorority sisters. And at the reception, he was overheard talking to Judd about... something.

Off with his head!

It's all true, however sordid.

On the Vandal article on Encyclopedia Dramatica it gives one suggestion that says "Imitate WordBomb"




Apparently WordBomb is the new Willy on Wheels. Anyone similar gets banned as a sock of him.

Just for kicks I go there every once in a while to see how many sockpuppets I have accumulated. Some are now protected forever, and some never even edited anything. I do feel bad for the people that are shut down because they are in a range blocked area.

And I heard he was living Stockwood, Ont-ari-ari-ari-o in a very Bagley way …

Jonny

Fest your eyes one this...

Sock R us...

Added bonus, about third are not Joe....

Wiki way of dealing with those who disagree.

Convincing all vandals to imitate WordBomb would be the best thing that could happen to Wikipedia. That's because I have, to date, committed precisely one act of vandalism and this is it.

In other words, if all vandals emulated me, vandalism would be ironic, harmless, almost entirely unseen, and extremely rare.

The fact that someone on ED (as opposed to some zombie like JzG) thinks that I really am a prolific vandal, despite the utter lack of evidence to support that belief, is a testament to the effectiveness of the Cabal's disinformation campaign.

And the fact that now they're attempting to change WP policy regarding "attack sites" based not on Encyclopedia Dramatica (which on the whole I find worthless and utterly offensive), but AntiSocialMedia.net, is simply ponderous to me. How can they possibly find anything on ASM more offensive and "attacking" than this (which I put forward as an extreme example but strongly recommend you do not look at it...just trust me, there is no excuse for it no matter what SlimVirgin may have done to anybody)?

Clearly, there's something bigger going on here, for this ridiculous imbalance of reason to not only persist but to flourish, and with the apparent endorsement of Jimbo Wales.

What a sad, dark and backward place Wikipedia has become.

That is one of the most pleasant pieces of vandalism I have seen.


Unlike WR and ASM, ED offers nothing to substantively challenge Wikipedia, and doubtlessly appeals to the demographics and social background of WP users. That is to say: entitled nerdy immature white males 11-22 years old.

In my experience, if you try any WR type criticism of WP on ED, it's rapidly reverted as lacking "lulz". I'd guess that there are lots of strongly pro-WP and even pro-Cabal people there.

If some noob walks notices something interesting in an article's history and restores it, they're at great risk of being accused of acting as meatpuppets for the evil banned user who first wrote the censored words. It's a fine way to ban people based on their beliefs, rather than their actions. Call it guilt by association.

My own ban was a direct consequence of uncensoring a pair of sentences on [[Circumcision]], which got Jayjg and his Snippies all riled up. I was guilty of first degree Disagreement With The Cabal, and got what I deserved for my impudence.

Anyhow, your case is not unusual There've been quite a few people and IP's banned on the basis of being my puppets, yet -- so far -- none of them have been me. It's the new fashion...

Al

You'd be quite wrong in that guess. Here's another. ED is just anti-pedantic.

I just did a locator check on some of your suspected IP sockpuppets. And they came out as being in the US, Italy, Germany and the UK.

You get about a bit, then.

I said "WR type criticism", not juvenile rants.

My point was, you are wrong to think "there are lots of strongly pro-WP and even pro-Cabal people there." Here's the best example yet.

Indeed. ED does not exist to criticise WP, it exists to make fun of the internet. Admittedly, it doesn't do it very well, but I honestly don't understand all the complaining here about ED. WP is only a part of ED's focus.. they take the piss out of places like Livejournal too iirc.

Pointing to cases where some people are not strongly pro-Cabal is no evidence that there are no pro-Cabal people.

I'd be very, very surprised if you could find any pro-Cabal edits on ED, or any evidence whatsoever of pro-Cabal sentiment, while pages such as those I've presented are plentiful.

Maybe complaints about internal Wikipedia politics are reverted, probably because they are boring. Nobody on a parody site wants to read a full page about how SlimVirgin has manipulated the Original Research policy over years to slowly enhance her factions strength in content disputes. As for the "strongly pro-WP and even pro-Cabal people there" it would maybe if you named them because as a long term ED regular I can't think of any. The closest example I could think would be Miltopia (still miles away), but he clearly has no sympathies for the Wikipedian elite.

Indeed! It's completely bizarre that people on WR have misunderstood ED to the extent that they thought it was the place for serious critique.

Look no further than how our own Blissyu2/Zordrac is treated, just because he's regarded as anti-Cabal.

But that was not the reason for the abuse of him there (as I'm sure he'll confirm)! He made a bunch of strange articles while quite ill and on lots of disorienting medications; then asked for all the articles to please be deleted; then created them all again; and so on. I found the saga rather endearing and I felt concerned for him. I think, in fact, notwithstanding the occasional volley of insults and threats from some young jackanapes, that his contributions on pages re: Wikipedia and the cabal are really welcomed there. He has not been "banned"; he doesn't try to smoothen out or factualize the portrayal of anyone (in an article), and is willing to go along with EDs tendency to "poetic license" (shall we call it).

Crap! CRAP!! There's more cabal on ED than on ArbCom.

I totally agree. ED is rotten with Cabalists. I'm pretty sure the late "Jayjg" had an account there. They seek to win through argumentum ad contrario. Disgusting.

As I said before name these so-called Cabalists, if they really have overrun the place this shouldn't be to hard.

What evidence do you have for Jayjg having an account there. It's a pretty outlandish accusation.

Also, let's not forget argumentum ad populum.