Talk:False and unsubstantiated claims: Difference between revisions

Talk:False and unsubstantiated claims (edit)

Revision as of 15:30, 14 September 2004

5,653 bytes added , 14 September 2004

anwsers in detail and complete with emoticons

Jukeboksi

Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators

9,854

edits

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 :Actually to be precise the cases I have moved to [[FUCOC]] were either false in the light of yesterdays knowledge
-::This is not "knowledge", this is allegations by [[Angela Beesley]] and so on making claims LONG AFTER the fact, which may well be made up in order to cover up.  These people lie literally every day:  if you read their deletion logs and so on, you will see that they refer to [[trolls]] as if they were doing [[vandalism]], they refer to new [[IP address]]es as "banned users" and other nonsense that is just made up on the spot by themselves to excuse their [[sysop vandalism]].  To call claims "false" on this basis is to assume that what comes from [[Angela Beesley]] is somehow accurate and what comes from [[trolls]] isn't while in fact the opposite is almost always the case.
+::This is not "knowledge", this is allegations by Angela and so on making claims LONG AFTER the fact, which may well be made up in order to cover up.
+:::May be. Unfortunatelly you have no email address since you choose to cower behind your [[bodylessness]] so you can't get a forward of that message. Not assuming that you wouldn't say that is a forgery too which could also be true, or not. Just for your knowledge I have inquired also [[English Wikipedia user Anthere]] about this and he was too in contact with the other board members or at least Jimbo about this issue '''before''' Jimbo authorized Ander Lih to take proper action. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:30, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST)
+These people lie literally every day:  if you read their deletion logs and so on, you will see that they refer to [[trolls]] as if they were doing [[vandalism]], they refer to new [[IP address]]es as "banned users" and other nonsense that is just made up on the spot by themselves to excuse their [[sysop vandalism]].
+:Actually there aren't any personal deletion logs where you could track the deletions of a particular [[sysop]]. Likely the [[cabal]] or [[clique]] or [[mediawiki developers]] or what/whoever sees no point in this kind of feature. For the other point it seems sadly so that [[Wikimedia]] policy makers and enforcers see trolls simply as vandals. Claiming them to be vandal and thus deleatable reduces the workload of sysops since people who reveal their identity more likely stick to the facts then those hiding in anonymity. I assume much more deleatable crap comes from anons then registered users, who '''IMHO form a community''', unlike you have numerous times stated though in this community getting your nose punched in or some other nasty thing like that requires a little more information and travel expenditure + time and effort on behalf of the person who wants to violate your physical safety as in your the crappiest bar you can find around where you live you can get this much more quickly say by looking up some mean looking fellow and consistently annoy them with crude accusations in regard to their sexual orientation, integrity, good reputation of their female relatives or intimate friends etc. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:30, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST)
+To call claims "false" on this basis is to assume that what comes from Angela is somehow accurate and what comes from [[trolls]] isn't while in fact the opposite is almost always the case.
+::I assume that Angela is telling the truth untill someone comes up with substantial evidence of the opposite being true. period. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:30, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST)
 :'''or''' unsubstantiated or simply not corruption by any sensible standards.
 ::Claiming [[Wikimedia]] has an [[independent board]] is absolutely corrupt - it's quite clear that three of the five members have ties to Bomis, shares in it and so on.
+:::What the fuck do you expect? They (Jimbo and other Bomis folk) put in a hell of a lot of money, bandwidth, time and effort into building [[Wikipedia]] to what it is today with thousands of people cooperating 24 hrs/day around the world to document the history, human knowledge and going-ons in a fairly transparent way, maybe just maybe a little skewed towards right-wing american gun-toting pro-authoritarian pov, '''but still those that play by the rules are allowed to play''' and you expect them to upon the selection of the '''first board''' for the non-profit which's one purpose is to detatch Wikipedia from Bomis for the apparent reason of avoiding a bias to come up with a bunch of un-involvees that have no clue about what are the real threats to integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia? You didn't apparently play by the rules.
 :Anthere was rather dissapointed that you stealthly diluted her responses to the claims you have posted, so it is you who is [[vandal]]ising the pages that are supposed to present the truth, not just the personal hatered of one troll against a internet project which has succeeded so well that it begins to have political weight.
 ::Sorry, correcting "allegation" to factual statement was accurate in all cases.  If she wanted her edits left alone she should have signed each line, OR, done the corrections to the text and the official response separately.  It is not up to [[trolls]] to figure out which elements of a frequently attacked and vandalized page have somehow become sacred.
+:::Umm... just like you sign every line? Umm... sacred? Like in the sense of stating facts against lies by some cowardly anonymous troll? And about the not-mixing of correcting text and replying to it you are on the right track. Edits to other people's (or even [[trolls]] if I'm having a good day) written text and response to them should not be mixed. Those interested in judging this for themselves should look up http://develop.consumerium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Alleged_Wikimedia_corruption&diff=5031&oldid=5030 (Anthere) and http://develop.consumerium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Alleged_Wikimedia_corruption&diff=5031&oldid=5030 ([[142.177.X.X]]). I personally did attempt a format for readability and more even for '''debatability''' in between these. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:30, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST)
 ::And [[Wikipedia]] is NOT a success, it is NOT quotable by journalists as if it were a real [[encyclopedia]], and it never will be with [[Wikimedia]] in charge.  Comparable projects with an [[independent board]] like [[LongNow]] do very well by contrast and raise about fifty times more money a year than Wikipedia can, because of the boat anchor of [[Wikimedia corruption]] and its [[sysop power structure]].
@@ Line 18: / Line 32: @@
 ::OK, we admit that not everything we write around here is not true, i.e. we are writing something other than lies.
+:::Sometimes, rarely some would claim --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:30, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST)
 : thus may be proven to be false, a process which is taking up my time which would be better spent on figuring out the practical details needed to launch a [[Research Wiki pilot]] --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 12:59, 10 Sep 2004 (EEST)
@@ Line 24: / Line 40: @@
 ::Face it, if these people were not pressuring you, you would not care about this page at all, it would be just be another expose of a corrupt bogus charity.
+:::Who? Me? [[False and unsubstantiated claims|this page]]? You must mean the [[Wikimedia corruption]] page that someone moved to [[Alleged Wikimedia corruption]]. Yes, the fact that Jimbo was rather pissed off at some of your '''false''' accusations was an incentitive for me to start thinking about how to get rid of '''untrue rumors''' and '''erronous facts presented as truth''' is a thing we must form a [[Consumerium:Policy]] to deal with since these will arise and there will be [[libel chill]] and [[cease and desist letters]] of utter threatening feel in the [[future]] to them so we take this as a practice and for the respect I have for Jimbo and his contributions into making information free, as it wants to be. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:30, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST)
+:::Let me sum up what's happened:
+#You start a page called [[Wikimedia corruption]] (which is understandable because you hate them so much)
+#Someone moves it helpfully to [[Alleged Wikimedia corruption]]
+#I attempt to remove lies from the article simply by deleting them because moving them to the talk page would indicate that these lies have some truth in them and this seems like an anti-productive thing to do
+#You quite immediatelly reinstate the false claims
+#I get a "little motivation" and get the gray cell moving
+#I understand that for a page of [[Claims of corruption]] (yes yes, it's red, for i have limited time and must study too) there must be a page for [[False or unsubstantiated claims of corruption]] so that when evidence is presented that requires the action of moving a claim from '''claim to false claim''' and from '''false claim to claim''' respectively this can be done. I hope you read this and follow this practice. Maybe there is need for more complicated set set of pages (not a typo) for dealing with stuff that is not like "the earth is flat"-stuff. I dunno but we must figure out. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:30, 14 Sep 2004 (EEST)