About: This is “Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast (Эхо Свободы, Радикальный Подкаст)”. In each podcast episode a different issue is discussed. Each episode can stand by itself, but there is a direction of the whole podcast towards the complete liberation. Additionally this is the space where poetry will be uploaded.
Author: My name is VolodyA! V Anarhist, i am politically anarchist, ethically vegan, spiritually ex-buddhist, religiously atheist, epistimologically agnostic, artistically poetic, sexually perverted, and queer gender-wise. But this podcast is not about myself, but rather about my ideas.
Contact: Anybody is more than welcome to contact me with your thoughts and comments. Please use the comment facility of LibSyn or send me an e-mail (Volodya_Ⓐ_When Gendarme Sleeps.org) (PGP key fingerprint: 0DDF C0B2 A699 E6E7 C154 567A D5BD 548F B099 86AC). I will accept and play audio comments sent as OGG Vorbis/FLAC (or MP3/Wave if you must).
Disclaimer: All that i discuss here is my opinion, i do not condone nor condemn any action(s) by this podcast, i simply speak my mind. Please respect that and be respectful if disagree. Trolling behaviour and spam do not constitute a form of speech and will not be tolerated.
Copyright: All the content that is made by me for this podcast is in public domain at the moment of publication unless stated otherwise. I would appreciate it if while using any of the things you find here, you provide reference back to me, but that is only a request.
Important: This podcast is not affiliated with LibCom.org.
Sun, 11 March 2012
There's been an unfortunate series of events taking place recently on Wikimedia Commons and English Wikipedia after i have voted a way that one admin didn't like on the deletion request. This has lead to the highlight of the way that Wikimedia operates. This is the public statement about these events.
Please note that there are two people who are trolling me at this moment, if you are one of those two people, i don't really want to hear anything you want to say any longer. You've proven that you're unable to talk rationally.
Direct download: EchoOfFreedom_Response_03_2012Mar11_WikimediaArbCon.vorb.theo.ogv
Category:Responses -- posted at: 7:02am EST
What was the exact reason for the ban? From what I gather, it's basically "we don't like you." Unless you "disobeyed" "them" by putting that pic back up after a vote/discussion? And how do they justify having the pics they do in the Hentai and Lolicon articles? Like Facebook, and like you expose, they are essentially a tiny private clique. Whether they do so out of irrational brainwashing or rational fear of a dangerous State is irrelevant -- the fact that the structure is the way it is (~10 people who have complete control) is the only thing worth noting. I guess the problem is ultimately them lying / failing their own mission statement: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." False advertising.
Update: I have gone and tried to find some information about ArbCom (i've made a freudian typo calling it a "con"). Here's what i found: * It consists of 13 active and 2 inactive people (yep, that for the entire world who uses Wikipedia). * It has two subcommittees: audit and ban appeals, the latter reviews bans "generally when all other avenues of appeal have been exhausted" (apparently i have exhausted everything before even starting). * I, as a banned user, am suppose to contact them and do one of the several listed things, one of them is "convincing administrators[...] that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption". Apparently the fact that i wasn't banned even though i edited for years without any disruptions isn't convincing enough. * I must explain why i want to be unblocked... "If the background or reason isn't clear, your request may be declined out of hand." I guess i can't do this one, i can't explain to these people why i want to be in their company. * I am suppose to "Assume the assumption of good faith. [Because] [t]he administrator who blocked [me] probably tried to assume good faith on your part, as did any administrator who had reviewed previous requests, and the administrator who will review your current request." As can be clearly shown by the statements from that administrator like "I don't care one way or another about your opinion". * "Those banned by Jimbo Wales must appeal either to him or the Arbitration Committee. Users banned by the Arbitration Committee must appeal to the Committee [...] Users banned by the community are normally unbanned only after a community discussion at the administrators' noticeboard determines whether there is consensus to lift the ban." I assume i was banned by the committee, since there was nothing about Wales, and nothing about community discussion. So i must appeal to... them. * Here's also a gem: "If your block relates to Oversight issues, then it concerns edits or log actions you have made which had to be suppressed. This is an extreme form of deletion used for removing potentially defamatory material, serious copyright violations, and non-public personal information including but not limited to addresses, phone numbers, or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public." But User:Geni who has posted my name on the site with the article with the similar name is apparently OK. No oversight block for him. There maybe more interesting stuff there. I don't have time to continue reading this legalese.