One day the scales drop from your eyes and you see that everything Wikipediots say on behalf of their project is nothing but a big fat total phreakin lie. On further investigation you begin to see that each and every Wikipediot lie is deliberately crafted by its fabricators to hide the reality of how Wikipedism really operates.

For example, let's examine the Widely Advertized Myth (WAM) that Wikipedia Is Not Censored.

The scale-free subset of Wikipedia Reviewers are wide awake to the fact that the So-Called Radically UnCensored Website (SCRUW) that we know as Wikipedia is radically censored in some ways just as much as it is relatively free of censorship in other ways.

What ways are those, exactly, and Why?

Let's face it — Wikipedia is one of the most censored, one of the most radically, relentlessly, and systematically censored websites that we have ever run across on the Web that still works up the e-frontery on a continuing basis to call itself free and open.

The only questions that remain are —

• What brand of censorship does the Wikpediot Elite Cabal impose on articles and editors?
• Why do they impose the particular brand of censorship that they impose on the website?

I propose that we use this thread to keep a dynamic watchlist on the editing diffs that evidence blatant acts of censorship by Wikipediot Management on Wikipedia articles.

This will of course engender a lot of discussion about each of our pet articles and nemesissysissyses, but I would like to make the serving suggestion that each poster use one of his or her early posts to begin keeping a dynamic list of diffs that exemplify clear acts of censorship by the Wikipediot Elite Cabal (WEC).

I will wait 15 minutes so I can create a separate page and make my next page a dynamic list of diffs that I've seen lattely.

Yeah, I could use a latte …

Jonny

Dynamic Watchlist of Censorship Blocks and Diffs —

My first crack at making a list and checking it twice has already shown me that it's important to keep track of the time order of censorship acts, independently of whether they represent account blocks or editing diffs, so I'm going sort the incidents in order of time as I collect them.

Jonny

Nota Bene. In this context ⊥ means perp.

28 Oct 2007

¤ Type @ Action ⊥ Agent @ Target : Article History or Editor Contributions
________________________________________________________________________

1. Bloc @ 01:00 ⊥ Picaroon @ User:Flawed And Irresponsible Research Tool

2. Tag @ 01:04 ⊥ Raul654 @ User:Flawed And Irresponsible Research Tool

3. Edit @ 01:05 ⊥ ElinorD @ Robert Black (professor)

4. Edit @ 01:25 ⊥ Picaroon @ Interdisciplinarity

5. Bloc @ 20:55 ⊥ Deskana @ User:Altacc

6. Edit @ 20:55 ⊥ Deskana @ Robert Black (professor)

7. Edit @ 20:56 ⊥ Deskana @ Interdisciplinarity

8. Salt @ 20:58 ⊥ Deskana @ User:Altacc

Wikipediot = Wikipaedian + idiot ???

If so, on behalf of the Society of Idiots with Ethical Objections to Wikipaedia (SIWEOW),
I feel offended about being equated to a Wikipaedian.

When I keep on seeing the "Not Censored" bit, I mostly see it in the context of pornography. Even then, we still get rid of stuff or try to make it school readable. Of course, changes to MediaWiki software makes it harder to do.

Never has so much about the nature of Wikpediot Perfidy been revealed by so few pieces of evidence. And I wasn't even going out of my way to look for flagrant abuses, but simply drew the most recent cards off the top of the deck. Let's just make the obvious observations about what any fool — well, you know what I mean — can see in the above sequence of incidents.

It is convenient to discuss these Administrative actions in terms of the Wikipediot Myths (WP:MYTHS) that they serve to puncture.

Myth 1. What Cabal? I Don't See A Cabal!

It has long been clear to anyone with eyes to see that the Cabal operates as a Cabal, that is, as a group of people who communicate in secret among themselves in order to plan the actions that they subsequently carry out in public. What we see here is yet another example of that. The first 3 actions of Picaroon, Raul654, and ElinorD all occurred within a space of 5 minutes. Unless all 3 accounts are operated by the same person, then it's clear that they acted in close coordination with one another.

Myth 2. Wikipedia Management Cares About Your Privacy

The Bill of Rights blueprint for privacy rights in the US is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads as follows:


It is a commonly heard Wikiediot Mantra that user privacy is inviolate except on probable cause and in accordance with due process. The Irregular Regulars of The Wikipedia Review will find it hard to believe that anyone out there still believes an assertion that is so constantly and just plain gleefully contradicted by the actions of Wikipedia Management. But we all understand that that the facts do not withstand the will to believe pleasant fictions, in some people. So it remains one of the most widely advertized myths about Wikipedia that privacy violations of the sort represented by CheckUser are conditioned on requirements of Probable Cause and Due Process. The data above suffice to puncture that myth once and for all, and anyone who has not succumbed to Wikipedia's Culture Of Ignorance (WP:COI) will know that cases like these could be multiplied many thousandfold.

Jonny

I explained the differential semantics of the terms Wikipedian and Wikipediot, at least, as I understand them, on this thread.

Actually, I would acronymize that as SOIWEOTW, since I see no reason to continue the Centuries-Long Unjust Persecution Of Prepositions (CLUPOP).

Jonny

Those are not the brands of censorship that I am personally concerned to discuss. But there is an incident that played a critical role in loosening the scales from my eyes and ripping the fig leaf from Wikipediot hypocrisy about censorship, and I may find a proper place to relate it somewhere on this thread.

Jonny

Page In Progress (PIP) —

I will need to spend some time on this page developing a better format for documenting incidents of censorship, their surrounding circumstances, and their sequels. I really wish we had some relational database capabilities in this Forum. Maybe I will look at Centiare to see if something can be rigged up there. All in good time, you understand.

Jonny


¤ Type @ Action ⊥ Agent @ Target : Article History or Editor Contributions
________________________________________________________________________

27 Oct 2007

Initial Act Of Censorship

1. Edit @ 21:52 ⊥ Privacyisall @ Robert Black (professor)

First Revert Of Censorship

2. Edit @ 22:42 ⊥ Flawed And Irresponsible Research Tool @ Robert Black (professor)

28 Oct 2007

1. Bloc @ 01:00 ⊥ Picaroon @ User:Flawed And Irresponsible Research Tool

2. Tag @ 01:04 ⊥ Raul654 @ User:Flawed And Irresponsible Research Tool

3. Edit @ 01:05 ⊥ ElinorD @ Robert Black (professor)

Stalking + Retaliation "Further Reading : remove addition made by banned user"

4. Edit @ 01:25 ⊥ Picaroon @ Interdisciplinarity

5. Bloc @ 20:55 ⊥ Deskana @ User:Altacc

6. Edit @ 20:55 ⊥ Deskana @ Robert Black (professor)

7. Edit @ 20:56 ⊥ Deskana @ Interdisciplinarity

8. Salt @ 20:58 ⊥ Deskana @ User:Altacc

Is User:Flawed and Irresponsible Research Tool you? Raul654 insists that it was confirmed with CheckUser. Could he be lying?

See, you are giving idiocy a bad name. Idiocy is not the same as groupthink.

If only 10% of thought is conscious, and the other 90% is subconscious, then
instinct has 9 times the impact of intelligence.

See, intelligence does not save a person from very impending death. Instinct
does. Actually, I don't really know if my life was in danger or not on those
occasions, my philosophy being run first ask questions later.



But the acronym must contain at least one error, lest the spirit of the acronym
be trapped in the acronym by its perfection.

(I once had a conversation regarding Native American basket-weaving.
Apparently, a particular group of Native Americans believed that the basket
must contain at least one imperfection so that the spirit of the basket would be
free to roam and not be trapped in the basket, hence the origin of my joke.
No, I don't know of a reference, but I was under the impression the man I was
talking to had some expertise on the matter.)

Did you see a Request For Check User (RFCU) on Flawed And Irresponsible Research Tool (FAIRT)? I did not see one prior to the block, but I haven't had a chance to see if he posted a post fatso request today. If there was no RFCU prior to the block then he must be lying. Unless, of course, he is using CheckUser to conduct Searches and Seizures without Probable Cause.

What to do!? What to do!? Assuming Good Faith (WP:AGF) forces me to assume that Raul654 is either a liar or a thug. I guess it's a good thing that we're a BADASSITE and don't have that Rule Of Information Illiteracy here, so then I can assume what seems far more likely, that he is both.

Jonny

It is not so much a case of searching the suspect as it is planting the gun on the corpse.

Actually, Wikipedia Review is no longer officially a BADSITE, per the ruling in the surely-one-day-soon-they'll-complete-it ArbCom case. Officially, only AntiSocialMedia.Net and Encyclopedia Dramatica are BADSITES. Everywhere else are just occasionally bad sites. Of course Private Musings and the various sock puppets are creating Linking to External Harassment as the backdoor version of BADSITES (this time ha ha ha we can't prove who is writing it so they get to sneak it in more easily). So Wikipedia Review isn't a badsite, its a possible LTEH site (Linking to External Harassment). Or if you like it this way, we are L teh. Yeah anyway that's us now.

Now why would Raul654 say that he did a CheckUser when he didn't? I mean do they just throw around "Sock puppet of Jon Awbrey" to win an argument? I suppose there's a few other banned users to pretend are sock puppets too. I don't usually get much of a look in though. There's only been a handful of actual user names that were falsely accused of being me. But there are a number of IP addresses, all over the world, that they insist were me.

Bliß und Spiel,

I have named both your names to the House Unwikipedian Activities Committee for your groß indulgence in Identity Politics. Don't chew know that the Wikipediot Way Of Life forbids that kind of over-intrusive speculation on Who-Is-Who-It-Were Who actually actualized any particular edit, but requires you to evaluate each and every individual edit solely on the basis of its inherently intrinsic ipso facto quality per se?

Alluvwitch dicktates that the only thing you should even be thinking about, much less talking about, is the Con-Tribulation History of Flawed And Irresponsible Research Tool.

Do you see anything there that justifiably e-vokes a Suspicion of ProBabel Cause?

Jonny

PS. Jest between you and me and the other 3 readers of our highly covert BADASSITE, I think that User:Flawed And Irresponsible Research Tool is probably John Seigenthaler, Senior, since I'm pretty sure that the phrase in question is one that he used one time to describe our favorite Wikiplumbershelper. ~~Jonny

Why are they letting corporatesexoffenders.com escape? That has the worst attack on individual Wikipedians ever with real names, libel, etc.

Let me call your attention to Item 4 on 28 Oct 2007. I confess that I was shocked — no, really — to see such a flagrant and vile example of gratuitous spite.

Picaroon, having blocked Flawed And Irresponsible Research Tool as an alternate account of Jon Awbrey, evidently went on to carry out one or both of the following actions:

1. Searched the User Contributions of Jon Awbrey,
2. Or, what is more likely, given the large number of those contributions, searched Wikipedia for occurrences of the name "Jon Awbrey".

Picaroon found a reference to a paper co-authored by Jon Awbrey in the Wikipedia article on Interdisciplinarity. This was a reference that was highly pertinent to the subject of the article, it was presented at an international academic conference, and it was subsequently revised for publication in a highly respected, peer-reviewed, international journal. So naturally Picaroon deleted it. Because, y'know, his goal is the improvement of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.

This raises an interesting question —

Does Picaroon's edit line rationale for his action, "removed addition made by banned user", reflect a general policy of Wikipedia that dictates the retroactive reversion of all edits made by users subsequently banned ???

Yes, I'm talking to you, Mr. Wales.

'Cause, y'know, a policy like that could have vewy intewesting consequences …

Jonny

Following this new revelation, our next goal should be to get every respectable academic , scholar, and historian in the world banned from Wikipedia.

== How be a good wikipeida admin. ==
In more general terms, how an admin can also enjoy the pain of others by:


[[WP:TROLL]]
Baiting and using intensifiers in commentary (such words as ''terrible, dumb, stupid, bad, good,'' and so forth, and exclamation marks).

[[WP:IGNORE]] Wack the hammer down and pwn someone]].

[[WP:DICK]] Striving to a jackass and a dickhead (or regional favorite JAGOFF)

[[WP:SOCK]] Accepting that any one not a Jenuine JIMBO JUICE JERK is a SOCK and must be bitten hard

[[WP:CONSENSUS]] Acknowledging one principle, its our way or no way]].

[[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes]] WE BRAKE FOR NO ONE, We fuck with every one.

[[Ethic of reciprocity]] FUCK'em before before they can have a say.

[[Active listening]] Listening takes time from caring for my new vandal fighting wiki bot coding.

[[Wikipedia:WikiLawyering]] LAW, WE DON"T NEED LAW and STINKING LAWYERS We are the LAW.

Ban early, as a first resort. Ban all and ban as many as you can. Consider a user to the object of some wikipwnage using [[WP:DICK]] and [[WP:IGNORE |ALL RULEZ]].

Use standard welcome/warning messages... TROLL, IDIOT, YOU MUST BE SOCK OF <ENTER NAME OF ALL PURPOSE SOCK> or the Ye ole wiki favorite...YOUR A SOCK of <Name of JoeH> AND YOUR BANNED TROLL!!!

Consciously choose your agenda and POV, strive to be a true cultist of the Wiki by fostering hate, anger, of those who don't believe in our GOD, JIMBO, and the Holy Wiki. Devote much time and resources, as to be all consuming in your life as an wikiadmin, that task is to build a mound of BULLSHIT so FOUL and So high, that it should stink to high heaven.




If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

Joseph, we all understand about intensity of feeling, but we are trying to do a couple of things here:

• Document the abuse, censorship, harassment, hypocrisy, and mystification perpetrated by Wikipedia Management.
• Attract the attention of an ever wider, potentially concerned public to the dangers of degrading our education and information resources that are posed by Wikipedia Management.

I know that I've seen that same post of yours at least a couple of times already, so maybe you could store it somewhere in the Forum and simply refer to it by link?

Gratia in futuro,

Jonny

And, really, how hard could it be?

In a way we have to thank Picaroon for providing us with such a KICAS (Keep It Clear And Simple) example of a point that has generally been remarkably difficult to explain to the non-participant spectator on the Wikipedia scene, namely —

How does it happen that researchers and scholars with no more than the casually concerned citizen's sidelong interest in the more celebrated controversies of the day will find themselves dragged by the hair on the chinney-chin-chin of their professional integrity into death-struggles with the Wikipedia Cabal, death-struggles that, given the state of their naivete and the slope of their learning curve about the Cabal, will almost inevitably result in their being driven out of Wikipedia, with a ban or with a wimpout, but gone with the wiki either way?

Picaroon shows us the way.

Jonny

I know some reputable academics who have violated WP:AUTO by correcting their own entries. Let's get them banned.

It does happen, but the script is strangely manipulated by the Cabal to exclude and bury content not to their liking.

Nor is there any functional avenue for redress of grievance within their unresponsive system of review. My entreaties to Mike Godwin and the ArbCom fell on deaf ears.

I guess WP:AUTO is one of those φlesh-eating policy φungi that sprang up after I "graduated" from Wikipedia, but it sounds like a re-rerun of the old WP:VANITY policy that often commingled in a very WP:COI way with WP:NOR.

That is a medley of tunes on which we might compose a genuwhine simφoney, and it shows us one more place where the imaginations of inφants in φloppy φedoras about what it must be like to be a real reporter, scholar, tinker, tailor, soldier, spy, ad infantium out-races their experience and expertise with actually doing any of those things.

But I e-gress …

Back to the Censors — or Sensors, as Wikipediots often spell it — the Snippy Snoopy Scissors of the Meatpuppet Management of Wikipedia, What They Cut, and Most Impertinently, Why.

Jonny

"...I'll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition's flames before I give him up."

(Chapter 36, "Moby Dick" by Herman Melville)

Taboo or Not Taboo?
That is the Question.


Or as they might express it on Wikipedia...

Tatoo or Not Tatoo?
That is the Question.

I pulled my harpoon out of a dirty red bannedana …

Now where's that blasted Wiki-White-Wale !?

Jonny

Excuse me while I kiss this guy...

That never made sense to me. I never heard a harmonica called a "harpoon." At least one version of the lyrics says "pulled my harp on out.." But most go with "harpoon." They also claim the line refers to a variously a tampon or a heroin syringe. This one attributes the song to Willie Nelson. Worse yet this one to Leann Rimes. That's no way to treat a Silver Tongued Devil and Rhodes Scholar. Got to love the internet.

Excuse me, but I think the line is kiss the sky …

As an old Blues Harp And Marine Banned Troubadour and a one-time groupie of Sonny Terry and Brownie McGhee, I can testify that we did indeed refer to harmonicas as harpoons, though I can't say for sure what sign the first derivative fluxion of influence bore.

Jonny

I guess that is right. Still as a retired two continent hitch-hiker from the days when the inter-states were our internet (and taught patience and prayerful waiting), I wonder if the usage predated the song? Sure would have liked to have met Sonny Terry.

"...I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom and 'round perdition's flames before I give him up."

("Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan", spoken by Ricardo Montalban, as Khan Noonien Singh)

This got quite a reaction from the Federation, too.

Greg

I was thinking of that as well, but I didn't know the exact quote.

Not sure. The link from Harmonica to Harp is standard and long-standing via the Hohner Blues Harp that everyone had at least 2 or 3 keys of, and it was always my sense that the expletive syllable was tossed in for the sake of euphoniass metre or humorous epithesis. Try to say that sans spit. I will of course eschew any speculation about the tang of poon.

Jonny