Wednesday, January 28, 2015

The banning of an SJW

One of Wikipedia's worst SJWs, the anti-GamerGate Ryulong, has been banned indefinitely for his all-too-typical thought-policing:

Ryulong banned

5.3) (Was 4.5) Ryulong (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  1. (first choice) As always, banning someone is not something we should want to do, but sometimes it is the best thing for the project. Ryulong has acted very poorly in this topic area, and it is clear that previous sanctions and blocks have failed to have the desired effect of ending disruptive behavior. A revolving door of speedy topic bans, chasing the problem from area to another, is not the answer. This is. I sincerely hope that at some point in the future he will be able to return and be a productive member of this community again, but for now he needs to go. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Will prioritise later if need be,  Roger Davies talk 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    Equal first choice,  Roger Davies talk 11:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Last Choice I would love to not do this but I don't think anything else has a snowball's chance of passing --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 01:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. First choice. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Last choice of presented options (Right now). I think if we're dealing with this on a purely pragmatic level this might be best for the project, but I do think that it would only be fair to attempt to apply some of the alternatives first, although I'm a bit concerned as to their potential efficacy, given the history. NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Nonetheless, support. NativeForeigner Talk 19:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  7. T. Canens (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  8. If the 1RR does not pass, then first choice of what's left. Still oppose if the 1RR somehow moves back to passing. The more I look at the history here, the more I am sure the problems are far wider than just this single topic, as I see it, Ryulong doesn't seem able to "hold his fire", and not get into edit wars. This also, per his block log, is independent of topic areas. Without very, very strong measures to stop them from continuing to edit war throughout the encyclopedia, I don't think we have any other choice. Also, even to this morning, I still see evidence of ongoing battleground mentality. I really, really don't like this, but I can't support their staying on the project without a strict 1RR and a topic ban at this point. And only one of those is going to pass. Courcelles 22:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. My mind is open on the other proposed remedies, but I will certainly not be supporting this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Neither will I. Need to contemplate the rest of it, but this is not the solution. Courcelles 03:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Excessive in the circumstances. I'm open to some alternative. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I would like to try something else. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. I've decided to oppose this, albeit weakly. I'm hoping that the other remedies regarding Ryulong will end this situation, but I don't quite think a siteban is the best course forward here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Given the circumstances here, I don't think this is called for. For clarity's sake, though, this is very likely the absolute last chance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. LFaraone 18:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. I find my view on this changing from day to day, so it would be fairer if I abstained. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Noting that I skipped this intentionally—still thinking on it and will come back soon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @NativeForeigner: I tried to fix the numbering, but clarification of your exact meaning would be useful here. Courcelles 20:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course, a perusal of the process tends to illustrate why Wikipedia is so hapless when it comes to policing outrageous behavior by its editors. Because it was started by an SJW-sympathetic individual and was rapidly taken over by SJWs of varying rabidity, the site remains hopelessly biased and largely worthless on anything of even moderate political contention.

 That being said, it is good to see that Wikipedia is trying to clean up its act, even if it is going about it in a manner that makes Sisyphus look productive. But they simply refuse to see that the way they cherry-pick which sources are deemed reliable and which are not is what produces the intrinsic left-wing bias. The SJW editor who sits on the Wikipedia page about me and tries to publicize as much negative information as possible while minimizing any positive information shows how he evades the point on the Talk page there:

Many of the recent additions to this article seem to be the direct result of Mr. Beale's recent blog post in which he commented that Wikipedia is unfairly and dishonestly excluding material on his views: "Does [the 'Views section in the Wikipedia article] describe my views at all? Are the totality of my views really limited to little more than a feud with John Scalzi and my expulsion from SFWA? Do I have no opinions on economics, politics, philosophy, literature, and religion despite having written books on the former and the latter? It's telling, too, to observe that if the so-called feud and the expulsion are the only significant aspects of my views, there is no mention of the connection between the former and the latter."

Mr. Beale then gave a brief description of his views on economics — he feels that the Austrian School is currently the best explanation available, but is ultimately flawed for various reasons — and stated that "(t)hose are my actual views on the subject. That is the absolute truth. Post them on Wikipedia and they'll be suppressed within 24 hours."

This, I believe, is indicative of a general misunderstanding. Of course Mr. Beale has a great many more views than are provided in this article; for instance, he has expressed an appreciation for the writing of Frank Herbert and a dislike for that of Patrick Rothfuss. I'm certain he also has food preferences, and opinions on the best way to teach mathematics to children. He may even have discussed these views in posts to his blog. But the mere fact that Mr. Beale has a view on a subject does not indisputably lead to the conclusion that the view should be included in Wikipedia's biography of him, not even if he has made a blog post in which he explicitly states that view. Rather, the views which are (or should be) included are those which have drawn significant independent external attention. I hope that this explanation will satisfy the readers of Mr. Beale's blog, and possibly even Mr. Beale himself. DS (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2014
This is the height of absurdity. I misunderstand nothing. Nor do you, my readers. There is FAR MORE significant independent external attention that has been paid to my views on economics, religion, and the history of war than have ever been paid to my views on immigration or race, much less my "Feud with John Scalzi". I have NEVER done an interview about the latter; Scalzi himself did only one. I did over thirty interviews, some on national radio, about economics subsequent to the release of THE RETURN OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION and more than twenty related to THE IRRATIONAL ATHEIST.

Transcripts and links to some of those interviews are available on my blog. My views are clearly expressed in them - again, on national radio shows, and even in one case, television - and yet every last trace of those views have been methodically scrubbed from Wikipedia by the likes of DragonFlySixtyseven.

Here is just one of many possible examples pulled from my email. There are over 75 similar emails from different media outlets ranging from Fox News to the Saturday Evening Post. But in the impartial eyes of the Wikipedia editors, the cumulative total of that independent external attention is less significant and notable than John Scalzi talking about himself on his blog that gets less than half the traffic of this one.

NAME:  Vox Day                     
TOPIC:  The Irrational Atheist
DATE:  Tuesday, October 21, 2008
INTERVIEW TIME:  11:15 – 11:55 am ET
MEDIA:  Christian Radio Network - over 200 stations in 34 states, 19 affiliates and in Canada

I can't speak to the accuracy of the rest of Wikipedia, but my page is mostly nonsense from start to finish. I mean, it actually says that I was born in Minnesota.

Labels: ,


Anonymous zen0 January 28, 2015 8:27 AM  

Rather, the views which are (or should be) included are those which have drawn significant independent external attention.

So 'independent" means "SJW" in Wiki speak. Interesting.

Blogger Josh January 28, 2015 9:10 AM  

I cannot understand why this guy cares so much about his Wikipedia edits. My only conclusion is that it must be due to a lack of accomplishment in the real world.

Blogger dw January 28, 2015 9:12 AM  

Ill be honest, ive been reading this blog for ten years and had no idea until you mentioned it a few months ago that you werent born in Minnesota.

Anonymous Peter Garstig January 28, 2015 9:12 AM  

significant independent external attention

Haha. Now that's a good metric. What exactly is 'external' to the warren. Nothing, by definition.

Of course, the warren does not care about economics, religion or the history of war. It's not in their trigger list.

Anonymous Student in Blue January 28, 2015 9:12 AM  

I was reading somewhere else that this guy was, quite literally, pulling double shifts editing Wikipedia, based on timestamps of his edits.

Anonymous Student in Blue January 28, 2015 9:15 AM  

Ah, since VD updated the article I should articulate that by "this guy" I (and Josh, I believe) meant Ryulong, not the SJW editor who's sitting on VD's page.

Anonymous VD January 28, 2015 9:18 AM  

Ill be honest, ive been reading this blog for ten years and had no idea until you mentioned it a few months ago that you werent born in Minnesota.

But my blog isn't a reliable source anyhow. That's what's so stupid about Wikipedia. In the nominal attempt to prevent people from posting factual information, they make it factually false. I say nominal because the real purpose is to let the left-leaning editors act as the gatekeepers. So it's fine for people to post stuff on Scalzi's page based on what he's written, but anything posted on my page has to be from a recognized media source AND deemed relevant.

There is stuff about my son all over the international media in multiple languages. But that's not notable to them. What is deemed notable is the fact that my father was on the WND board at one time, because that fits their false narrative that I was given the column as a result.

There is nothing about my being nationally syndicated by Chronicle Features for the same reason.

Blogger YIH January 28, 2015 9:20 AM  

Someone at Whackopedia must just plain hate you (maybe the one who just got b&?).
Sailer's page is reasonably accurate.

Blogger Josh January 28, 2015 9:20 AM  

and Josh, I believe)


Anonymous Roundtine January 28, 2015 9:20 AM  

Wikipedia entry for Richard Nixon, 1972 election. Vote total: 0.

Blogger Josh January 28, 2015 9:23 AM  

Sailer's page is reasonably accurate.

And curiously it uses sailer's own blog as a source...

Blogger YIH January 28, 2015 9:23 AM  

I did overlook one thing in the Sailer page; it doesn't mention him being a (published) film critic.

Blogger Josh January 28, 2015 9:29 AM  

The very first sentence is "Steven Ernest Sailer is an American journalist and movie critic for The American Conservative"

Anonymous Harsh January 28, 2015 9:31 AM  

I mean, it actually says that I was born in Minnesota.

Everyone who's anyone knows Vox was born on the rez.

Blogger dw January 28, 2015 9:39 AM  

"There is nothing about my being nationally syndicated by Chronicle Features for the same reason."

Its like they hope by ignoring your accomplishments it means they do not exist. That post you wrote a couple years back where some rabbit, cant remember his name, questioned some minor achievment of yours is typical of them it seems, even for site thst purports to be about facts.

They cant let anyone whos their enemy have any recognized achievement, it defeats their delusions of their own superiority and their enemys inferiorty.

Blogger YIH January 28, 2015 9:45 AM  

Oh great. Dammit, here we go again...

Anonymous VD January 28, 2015 9:53 AM  

And curiously it uses sailer's own blog as a source...

Most pages do. Only when a Wikipedia editor of sufficient influence or persistence is camping a page will they rule out direct sourcing. For example, look at Sam Harris's page. His "Criticism" section is actually a defense section, where Harris's responses to criticism are featured and taken directly from his books.

This is just a variant of the way the Left whitewashes history in order to make it support the Leftist narrative.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 28, 2015 10:08 AM  

Just looking over the wiki page on "gamergate controversy," it still reads like a social justice manifesto.

Anonymous Salt January 28, 2015 10:11 AM  

If they keep it going it could be packaged and submitted for a Nebula.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 28, 2015 10:25 AM  

Where were you born, Vox? I only know you grew up in Minnesota.

It would be smart to exert pressure on the wikipedos to change the GamerGate pages. If they refuse, it would be wise to stop using their site and possibly look for alternatives.

Anonymous Porky January 28, 2015 10:29 AM  

100 bucks says the guy will be back under a new alias and new ip in less than 24 hours.

Anonymous Susan January 28, 2015 10:33 AM  

I find it amusing that the SJW's will still accuse VD of getting his column on nepotism and not talent. Yet Luke Russert so obviously fits that statement much better than VD ever will.

Russert is still so obviously in over his head, one could almost call him the vanilla Obama of the journalism profession, for he is still that inept.

I used to read your column at WND VD. You had then, and still have, a way of putting things that can at once entertain, and make one think. No matter how you deny it, that is a talent that not many people have who are called writers.

Blogger Da_Truth_Hurts January 28, 2015 10:39 AM  

In related SJW news, who is up for an all-female cast reboot of ghostbusters?

"Several well-known comedic actresses are said to be in negotiations for the new Ghostbusters movie.

Former and current SNL cast members Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones are all in early talks for the film, according to Variety. Earlier this week, director Paul Feig confirmed that Melissa McCarthy was in talks as well.

Sources reportedly claim Cecily Strong is likely to play a government official, similar to William Atherton's role in the first Ghostbusters film."

IGN is a hotbed of white knights but the comments are strong opposed to this display of hollywood peak-SJW.

Anonymous Student in Blue January 28, 2015 10:42 AM  

@Tom Kratman

I believe it's been earmarked to be rewritten. The article that's currently up should be the old one.

I'm not saying the new one will be 100% correct however...

Anonymous Jill January 28, 2015 10:48 AM  

There is a kind of magic that occurs when you repeat words enough times. They actually become the truth. I'm not sure of the exact number of incantations, but the phenomenon is somehow related to, or the inverse of, the liar's paradox. Or, er, something. The fact is that you actually *were* born in Minnesota now.

Blogger JDC January 28, 2015 10:50 AM  

It seems rather childish, like a 3 y/o who balks at being told no. They don't even know what they want, yet they throw a fit when they can't have everything they want.

Anonymous dh January 28, 2015 10:55 AM  

The information on your wiki page is very badly out of date and the stuff they are posting does not follow the current rules.

Self-published information is an acceptable source unless the claim is extraordinary, especially when about a living person.

Anonymous IM2L844 January 28, 2015 10:56 AM  

DragonFlySixtyseven's writing sure has a familiar timbre and cadence, sort of like an axe on a grindstone.

Anonymous Donn January 28, 2015 10:58 AM  

Why get your panties in a wad over gamergate? Seems like a stupid hill to die over anyway for a SJW type. If you read through some of the entries about certain ethnic groups you have to slog through really bad editing and obviously revisionist and biased writing. You'd think that with everything to choose from they would picks something more important to ban someone over.

Maybe 'Rumpelstiltskin' has made himself a nuisance to the other neckbeard 'editors' and they're tired of having to police their little bailiwicks to keep them in order.

Anonymous hygate January 28, 2015 11:03 AM  

"Its like they hope by ignoring your accomplishments it means they do not exist. That post you wrote a couple years back where some rabbit, cant remember his name, questioned some minor achievment of yours is typical of them it seems, even for site thst purports to be about facts."

Many years ago on usenet I mentioned that I had been in the army and scuba dived. Not actually earth shattering "achievements." But for one fellow even that was to much and he insisted that I prove both items. When I didn't he declared that he had unmasked me as a liar. Of course.

Blogger YIH January 28, 2015 11:09 AM  

It was Bill Murray himself that was pushing for the all-female Ghostbusters.
The bottom line? He doesn't want anything to do with that franchise anymore.
And unlike some of his contemporaries, he ain't desperate for a paycheck.

Blogger Student in Blue January 28, 2015 11:13 AM  

Why get your panties in a wad over gamergate? Seems like a stupid hill to die over anyway for a SJW type.

You're expecting a logical response from people who proclaim feelings over logic.

Blogger JartStar January 28, 2015 11:20 AM  

Why get your panties in a wad over gamergate?

Because their moral authority was questioned.

Anonymous Salt January 28, 2015 11:32 AM  

The ripple effects of #GamerGate is deliciously entertaining.

Blogger Pinakeli January 28, 2015 11:36 AM  

I would be happy to send a confirmation e-mail about the interview on our show as well, but they won't even let us create a page for the show so I don't think it would matter to them anyway.

Anonymous Crispy January 28, 2015 11:37 AM  

100 bucks says the guy will be back under a new alias and new ip in less than 24 hours.

Quite possible. But he/she won't have the same privileges, and if found out, will have the new account deleted.

It's like the old joke, "What do you call 100 lawyers buried up their necks in concrete?" -- Answer "A good start."

Blogger Josh January 28, 2015 11:38 AM  

It's like the old joke, "What do you call 100 lawyers buried up their necks in concrete?" -- Answer "A good start."

Nooses or crosses are cheaper...

Anonymous Daniel January 28, 2015 11:39 AM  


‏@scalzi · 18h18 hours ago
Read Jonathan Chait's thing on political correctness. It confirms that using "PC" seriously is a sign you're about to embarrass yourself.

John Scalzi attacked "PC" seriously in defense of his own novel in The Zombie Robert Heinlein Rises From the Grave Yet Again to Annoy the Politically Correct.

Blogger Josh January 28, 2015 11:41 AM  

Jonathan Chait is about to be stampeded by the SJW wildebeests, if he hadn't already.

Blogger Robert What? January 28, 2015 11:43 AM  

I don't trust Wikipedia and never use it, except on rare occasion when doing the most mundane, fact-based lookups, like how to compute the volume of a sphere. Google spams most searches with Wikipedia entries at the top, but I always skip over the WikiSpam results.

In addition, I never accept citing Wikipedia as a valid source for someone supporting their arguments.

Blogger Owen January 28, 2015 12:14 PM  

All-Female Ghostbusters.

What's the over/under on the first "joke" about getting a period?

All feminist "comedy" is a quick joke or two, then non-stop crotch gags.*

*pun intended

Blogger Eric Wilson January 28, 2015 12:28 PM  

Not entirely OT, but in linking to Anita Sarkeesian's tumblr account Nick Kristof says he's ashamed of his Y chromosome.

Anonymous Anubis January 28, 2015 12:34 PM  

Is Jonathan Chait a leftist or a conservative using satire? Wikipedia seems to be missing an entry for the George Soros internet army.

Blogger Drew January 28, 2015 12:47 PM  

We won't be out of the woods until they get rid of RGloucester. That guy led the charge to delete the Cultural Marxism page and many other activities to advance his Marxism and suppress criticism of it on Wikipedia.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza January 28, 2015 1:02 PM  

Wait, is this the Ryu from inmalafide (closed down)?

Blogger LP 999/Eliza January 28, 2015 1:14 PM  

Well then this is the outcome, wikipedia needs to perfect their own rulebook.

Anonymous Seymour Butz January 28, 2015 6:48 PM  

I hate to reveal my omega credentials, but for what it’s worth, Ryulong (whose name is literally ‘Dragon’ in Japanese followed by ‘dragon’ in Mandarin) was also a very active and very insufferable editor on Wikipedia’s tokusatsu (think Japanese Power Rangers) pages. He insisted on imposing his preferred transliterations and interpretations at all points and at all times, and would immediately pounce upon and revert any change not to his liking. He berated anyone who disagreed with him and maintained a narcissistic posture in his dealings with people elsewhere in the community. He’s a blight on the boards where he posts even as a non-moderator. Take that for what you will.

Blogger TheCitadel January 28, 2015 9:56 PM  

One Modernist dirtbag bites the dust. There are plenty of others to replace him, but its a nice outcome.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts