User talk:TechnoFaye

I closed the discussion regarding you over at AN/I because I wasn't finding it to be productive. I have had zero knowledge or involvement in this case and am not taking a side, I just didn't see the discussion as helpful any longer.

If you have images you want restored there's an appeal process for that. Regarding your user page I think if you cut down on some of the external links it would be beneficial (especially since some of the external links are going parked domain adsit violates WP:LINKFARM. If you have any other concerns about this process I will be happy to look at them if you contact me. --WGFinley (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes please. I currently have no user page and many people have contacted me through it. Is it possible to unblock just my user page? Obviously. people will be watching to make sure I don't put any dirty pictures on it or make speeches about being blocked (which I won't). I just want to put contact info, as my wikipedia name appears nowhere but wikipedia. In fact, after I do that, you can re-block it if you like. TechnoFaye Kane 03:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Your blog includes a campaign to get people to come to Wikipedia about this issue, that's not allowed, it's called canvassing. If you were to remove that entry from your blog I might be inclined to restore the parts of your page that are not in violation of policy. Keep in mind the policies about user pages: WP:NOTBLOG is one in particular you should look at and then the full user page policy at WP:UP. Your user page is free to include information about you to assist in contributing to the project. If you have questions you can ask me here I am watching your talk page. My user page also has my contact information. --WGFinley (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well since I've already been blocked, it costs me nothing to remove the req for assistance. So I did. Now please unblock my user page. I KNOW you're watching it (obviously), and I just want to put something so a user page will exist. As it is now, when people see my edits and look at my name and it's red, they figure I am a newbie editor who doesn't know what's going on, when in fact I'm an experienced editor who doesn't know what's going on.

Also, I'd like to point out that I NEVER wanted to put anything there which was against-the-rules enough to cause it to be deleted. In fact, this is probably a tautology, unless people exist who want their user pages to be deleted (perhaps as a test case).

I'd further point out that when Rubinstein raised hell about that pic as part of his harassment of everyone objecting to his "cleansing" the R/I article, I removed not just the pic he objected to, but all kinds of sex-related text no one had objected to yet, just because I thought it might cause similar objections. Yet my page was deleted ANYWAY, presumably because one image remained which I specifically said if there are further objections, let me know. TechnoFaye Kane 04:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The page is still there Faye, it needs to go before I'll restore your user page. I'm going to purge the image from it in question. I'm not going over what happened before; I want to deal with things going forward now. --WGFinley (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

???

Wait a minute. You said your objection to restoring my user page was that on my blog, I'm soliciting support for not being banned from Wikipedia. I removed those solicitations since, because I'm banned, they no longer matter.

But now you say want my whole blog entry about WP deleted. I assume WP:AGF you're not trying to delete coherent, reasoned criticism of wikipedia on a blog by threatening the blogger with continued blocking of her user page.

Hmmm... or are you? Am I being autistic (overly trusting and naive) again?

Wow. I am. "IT" is happening again, something I call a cosmic disappointment--the kind of thing that made me abandon so-called "humanity" and live in a cave in the woods for three years.
:-(

Okay (sadly), per WP:BP:

Please give the specific reason you decline to remove the block on my user page after saying you would if I modified my blog in the way I have. Note that per the above,it must be related to a present concern about disruption, and I have already stated that:

1) I only want to create a nominal user page (saying I'm blocked) so people won't see my name in red and think I'm a new editor, and

2) I expect that if I put anything rule-violating in it, that it will be immediately deleted.

Also note: Since I expect you to delete this post and ban me from my own talk page to hide your grossly improper strongarming of an off-site blog because of a single entry critical of Wikipedia, I am posting this conversation in my blog. TechnoFaye Kane 05:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Shush, no one said anything about blocking your talk access. You haven't done anything to merit that. Why don't you put here what you want to put on your user page and I will look at it. As far as your blog I'm not trying to dictate content on your blog. I'm saying if there's content on your blog that says do x y z on Wikipedia that is off-wiki canvassing and not allowed.--WGFinley (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

> no one said anything about blocking your talk access.

Nor is there likely to be, as long as lots of non-wiki people are watching you and waiting for you to do things like this (the one by I, Englishman). When I read that, it washed away any naive trust I had left after my shocking experience with rubenstein, his comedy-relief sidekick, the R/I article, and most of all, mathsci. Though I scoffed at the reports, Wikipedia is in fact, unfortunately, a cliquish in-crowd quasi-cult. Perhaps that's too strong, because unlike other cults, they produce something beautiful and wonderful, something which I want to continue to participate in.

Now then...

> You haven't done anything to merit that.

I didn't do anything to deserve banning either, but that didn't stop rubenstein from having me politically assassinated. I now feel exaclty like the guy in the first half of Full Metal Jacket, who liked and trusted his barrack buddies until they held him down and beat him with soap bars. After that injustice, he became cold, serious, and by-the-book; completely without emotions--and he murdered his asshole sergeant.

Now I see why.

For me, it wasn't actually what happened to me that did it; it was two things: three R/I editors complaining about wikibullying and instead of the bullying stopping, THEY were thrown out--the bullies never even got warnings. and 2) The stuff I've read in the last 48 hours--similar stories by other people, in particular, this (the last one, at the bottom), and this is a summary by the winner of the EFF annual prize:

Contrary to the mistaken impression that everyone is on an equal footing, Wikipedia has an elaborate hierarchical structure which is infested with cliques and factional conflicts. Acquiring the support of a prominent member of the oligarchy that runs it can be an effective way of getting something changed, possibly against lower-level opposition.

That's EXACTLY what Rubenstein did, and it explains why my "trial" was no such thing, why they not only didn't listen to my defense or answer my questions; they pretended I wasn't even there. They made jokes about me in front of me, they used as "evidence" irrelevancies like me being homeless and my attitude about sex, and the "discussion" was concluded without advising me that it would be and asking me for a statement. Then I got, "Oh, BTW, you're banned from the project".

I never got a list of my wiki-crimes, just a general label. I'm quite sure it's not worth asking for any. They'll point back to the archived kangaroo court, where amid discussions of my health, my identity, my roommates, and even the electric power to my house, the only thing they discuss which actually breaks a rule is my making two "joke" edits in five years, one which was in the invisible metadata for a chart I uploaded.

Permanent block.

> I'm not going over what happened before

No, I imagine you don't want to. The repuglicans don't want to talk about Bush, either. People who commit injustice NEVER do. And you particularly don't want to talk about it because you don't HAVE to. You're a bigwig in a good-old-pals outfit if nobody stirs up the grave dirt, there won't be any "trouble", and you can go on to the help your gang what whatever else the groupthink wants to do.

> As far as your blog I'm not trying to dictate content on your blog.

No, no, of course not. And health and credit records are highly private. It's just that if you want to get health insurance or a job or a car or a bank account or anything more than the love of your dog, you have to "voluntarily" hand them over to people who use them however they want.

> Why don't you put here what you want to put on your user page and I will look at it?

How about you tell me what's in my outside-of-Wikipedia discussion that you demand I delete in order to have a user page like everyone else? What's the problem? I'll STILL be unjustly banned from editing, rubenstein and his comic-relief sidekick can "sanitize" the R/I article, and anything I post on my held-hostage user page that violates a rule will last about 12 minutes, so what's there to worry about? What does my blog have to do with it?

> there's content on your blog that says do x y z on Wikipedia. That is off-wiki canvassing and not allowed.

Uh huh, and what is that canvassing, prey tell? (Not a typo). I already told you I removed the parts of my discussion with my friends that Wikipedia wants to "disappear", but you said the whole blog entry describing my Wikipedia ANI kangaroo court must be disappeared too, or you'll continue to hold my user page hostage.

But of course, that isn't something improper like strongarming, punishment, retaliation, bullying, or suppression of external Wikipedia criticism though, because that would violate:

And again, this is what brought it all together for me.

I am now completely disillusioned and disgusted with the internal processes of Wikipedia. It's just like everything else in the god damn outside-academia so-called "real" world. Everything I believed about the Wikipedia "community" being like the Officers of the Starship Enterprise has turned out to be naive BULL shit, just marketing slogans by Wales, like the word "quality" is to American businesses.

You really need to read Seth Finklestein (the guy honored by EFF). He's the Eli Weisel of the internet.

Why do I still want to participate?

Because peer-reviewed, academic, mainstream scientific research is being deleted from an article; Wiki administration is knowingly allowing it because it's PC; injustice is being done to editors with integrity; and by FAR worst of all, little kids who come here to find the truth are being lied to.

THAT'S why. TechnoFaye Kane 12:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you, if you don't want the help then that's fine I have other uses for my time. --WGFinley (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

> I'm trying to help you,

No, you're trying to help Jimmy Wales. You're trying to use blocking to suppress criticism of WP admins on an external site in violation of WP:BLOCK. If you were trying help ME, you'd unblock my user page.

Perhaps you didn't bother to read all the above, as you don't see what's in it for you to, as you have what you want already: power. So let me put it more simply:

You said you wouldn't restore my user page because in a blog entry, I request assistance in preventing me from being banned. However I was banned anyway, and so I had no problems with removing those appeals for assistance. So why do you not unblock my user page?

Just answer that question please, and ignore the rest of this; it is for other readers with time and interest in the subject.

Wikipedia is a good thing with a fatal flaw: it is run by unpaid volunteers whose lack of remuneration gives them a peculiar feeling of license and unaccountability. As long as they do their jobs even approximately well, their lack of cost means the system has no incentive to establish a feedback mechanism to prevent their arrogant abuse of power. It's like abuse of power and POV-protection is their pay.

Wales appears not to care about this at all. Injustice to unpaid editors is perfectly okay with him as long as there are more unpaid editors. Sure, the cliques, cabals, political assassinations, and vendettas contaminate truth in the encyclopedia, but truth is less important to Wales than having articles about a lot of subjects. That a few "sensitive" articles like Race and Intelligence are biased and inaccurate doesn't seem to bother him, as long as the system keeps crackpot theories out of the physics articles.

The decision by a Wikipedia Administrator to block or unblock is purely a matter of personal whim, without regard to modern concepts of justice, rights, or due process. The discretion to govern according to whim and caprice is a throwback to the age of tribal chieftans, before humankind worked out such concepts as inalienable rights and evidence-driven beliefs. The commonly used rationales for blocking, disruption” and “incivility” are two of the most vague and subjective notions imaginable. As Professor John Harnad put it:

Wikipedia is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared to devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner “elite” arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted “rulebook” and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.

It is truly a “Tyranny of the Ignorant”

TechnoFaye Kane 01:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't restore your user page with the issues that are on it. Like I said, WP:NOTBLOG and WP:UP if you want to look as to why. As to the rest, I will take that as a no, you don't want my help. If you change your mind let me know. --WGFinley (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But I don't want you to restore my user page with issues in it. As I have said repeatedly here, I want you to restore my user page so I can bring it into complaince and strictly follows the guidelines you reference. But as a condition for doing that, you demand that I remove an entry in my blog outside wikipedia which calmly and rationally criticizes your decisions as an admin. This is the kind of abuse of power I refer to in the blog.

You cite WP:NOTBLOG and WP:UP as reasons for demanding that I remove a blog entry on a non-Wikipedia site. But those two guidelines do not mention external blogs or any other extra-Wikipedia activity. So please explain how those guidelines for what can be in a WP user page justify a demand for censorship in a blog critical of your behaviour as a WP admin. Again, for a third time, I remind you (and everyone else reading this) of official WP policy:

TechnoFaye Kane 01:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

For (HOPEFULLY) the last time, I am not trying to become unblocked. Okay? Now Now stop responding to a straw man and reply to this instead:

A) You said you'd restore my talk page, sans whatever you decide to censor. I of course have no say in what that is, as you have complete,despotic control over us users. Hey, it's a private outfit, it's legal.

B) You made doing that contingent on me censoring things I said on my blog which you don't like. I did that. I modified my blog per the Wikipedia's orders.

C) But having "won" that, you decided that Wikipedia (which you represent) wants my ENTIRE blog entry censored, presumably because it consists of two things:

1- the conversation at ANI about banning me

2- my commentary about it, pointing out the shockingly improper reasons they present for banning me.

You said this blog item was still "problematical" for Wikipedia. All I'm asking is what part is problematical. That's all, so I can censor it for wikipedia, like I did the previous material Wikipedia ordered me to remove.

Again, I am NOT asking to be un-banned. The HELL with Wikipedia (and I say it sadly). I am asking what I need to change about my blog entry so I can get my user page back, which you promised you'd do if I sanitize my blog's criticism of Wikipedia

Perhaps this is the statement Wikipedia doesn't want my blog readers to see: I said that I like wikipedia because it's rule-based, and that I will gladly follow the rules, in only someone would tell me what rule my user page broke. An admin replied, "What rule did you break? Hahahah! We don't need any rules to blank your user page and ban you, Faye; we'll ban you whenever the hell we feel like it, just because we want to!" [and he did] He said it like this:

"The idea that WP is rules-based is an artifact of well-meaning but misguided fringe philosophy influencing WP's early policy-makers. (They are great people but had some funny ideas, just like all of us do).... editors who try to make it operate by rules get into endless drama and conflict."

After all, in that same conversation, admin user:Weaponbb7 said "Block her and hide this thread [which discusses the reasons for the block]".

But hey Finley, you can always say that my trying to get my user page back before I leave wikipedia in disgust is just the kind of bothersome, inconveniently rule-based "drama" they supposedly banned me for!

on the other hand, perhaps Finley's statements are an instance of the arbitrary, extralegal (non-rule-based) admin behaviour the unusually candid admin (and sites all over the internet) have talked about.

...And one more "perhaps". Perhaps you think that in prolonging this talk page circus , I'm joking, or trolling. Or attention-seeking. Or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Or willfully creating "drama". ===> THAT IS NOT THE CASE <=== I may write with style, maybe not; it isn't for me to say. But I WILL say that my only goal in having this bizarre talk page conversation is to leave a user page before I leave this corrupted project forever... as so many others have.TechnoFaye Kane 02:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a pretty slick racket you guys got going. You prevent me from writing on anyone else's talk page and say "discuss it on your talk page". Then when I ask a question about what you admins did to me, you ignore my talk page.

Management here is not actually a cult. It's partially a cult, partially a corrupt banana republic, part the mafia, and part Lord of the Flies. The ones who pay for it are the kids who come here to find "the truth" at a place which has disgusted such a HUGE number of competent editors.

In the Race Intelligence article alone, you've lost four well-intentioned editors with integrity (including me) to political assassination, and one published specialist in the field (Dr. pesta). And what kind of wretched refuse remains to teach the curious children of the world through articles like Race and Intelligence?

1) Angry, rude, threatening, POV-pushing bullies like a particular math teacher fond of bragging endlessly.

2) Nerdy, socially-ostracized geeks who have power for the first time in their wretched lives and can now arrogantly abuse it just like "real" men who can get girls (Example: one editor who harasses me endlessly).

3) Ignorant dilbert's-boss-like retards who are completely clueless as to how PROFOUNDLY stupid they really are and make fools of themselves--but edit articles anyway which will be taken by the world as authoritative academic information (Example: that editor's bozo, comic-relief sidekick).

And who pays for it all? The curious children of the world. TechnoFaye Kane 17:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)