User talk:Binarygal

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --neon white talk 08:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

With regard to your most recent post on the ITIL talk page (diff) and considering the length of this discussion (so far taking 10 days and over 7,000 words since my original edit) it might be helpful if you were to say something to the same effect with regard to your reversals (diff) and your current viewpoint in the

An article is 'protected' every time a bogus edit is deleted. You are totally misinterpreting my use of the word. BinaryGal (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—Ash (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Binarygal,

I thought I'd send you a message directly. I understand that you are quite passionate about ITIL, but please understand that if you are at all affiliated with the site then it is considered bad form to add external links about "a site that you own, maintain, or represent".

It would be best to get consensus first on the ITIL talk page, of which I haven't really seen so far. It might also be best to take a step back from editing that article, because it looks like things are getting fairly heated and I'm seeing a lot of accusations of a personal nature making an appearance (not just from yourself).

However, if you do believe that the site in question is significant, then I have a few suggestions for you.

• Note any content that is unique to the website and that could not be used directly by Wikipedia because it is opinion, original research, etc.
• Note if the site has any forums (I believe that it does?)
• You noted that there are about 60,000 users of the site - can you give evidence of this?
• Has the website been reference by any other well known or significant ITIL source? If so, then this would give the site reasonable weight when determining whether to keep or not.

I will also post these suggestions on

No, I have no affiliation with it at all. I wouldn't be defending the link if I had for the reasons you state.

I would also note that the link is there and has been for years, and the campaign is to remove it. That is the action which requires consensus, and there is none, and there wasn't any with previous attempts to remove it either.

You are also confusing the links being referred to. This discussion relates to the ITIL Open Guide, and not the ITIL Community Forum. The latter link was in fact removed, wrongly in my opinion, because it has far more ITIL specific content than any other website in the world.

Regarding links generally, it is also worth considering why other links have not been subject to this sort of situation. Why the American ITIL link with relatively minimal content for example, is seen as perfectly ok, whilst this one with significant and unique content and position is not.

None of it makes sense from a purely value of link perspective, especially the absolute determination to get rid of this single link on behalf of some others. BinaryGal (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—Ash (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BinaryGal, please review

WP:OUTING in its entirety. You're skating dangerously close to a lengthy block here. Thanks. -SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

BinaryGal: Good luck. I see it continues, and I don't know whether you are being hard-headed about it for a wholly sound, a wholly unsound, or an intermediate level of reasoning. Good luck with gaining allies; good luck with sorting out what you need to do with your time. Any response beyond "thank you" to this would be pointless.Julzes (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... thank you. All I did was find something I didn't want to. I didn't ask to spot what was going on, but I did. I was then stuck with watching the article being abused, or kicking up a fuss and trying stop it. I did what was right, and got kicked around for it. There is nothing more I can do. Thanks anyway. BinaryGal (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, just stop. You are not being victimized (at this point), and if you are right you can't help that particular article.Julzes (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Binarygal,

I notice that you are continuing to push your viewpoint that there is a conspiracy theory against the ITIL article to keep those external links out of it.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for You have pushed this matter about a few external links to an article beyond all reasonable limits and have become disruptive. If you promise to drop this matter and move on, I will unblock you.. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. llywrch (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My crime is attempting to get Wikipedia to take extensive abuse seriously. But you simply refuse to investigate. You are pathetic. BinaryGal (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are unlikely to get you unblocked. -

talk 11:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

What personal attack was that? S/he seems to be saying that to wikipedia generally. S/he had better think about whether s/he has anything to contribute to general knowledge here without focusing on this one hopeless thing, if you ask me.Julzes (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point? Abusers are allowed to prosper, whilst I get banned for daring to spot it (and asking at least 20 times for a full investigation). Anyone who comes along from the hierarchy is too lazy to do the spade work, knee jerking in support of those who play the game here.

Which game? Here's the game: make hundreds of edits over many months, learn the Wikipedia protocols, get established, and you are rolling. You can take over an article and use it how you wish. Completely distort the reality, hide the true picture, and maintain it as a sales pitch.

Hey, it's a lot cheaper than buying Adwords!

Yes, it's pathetic. Let's drop the pretence that this place is based upon integrity, because it isn't: the interest on that Admin page of investigating the systematic abuse was zero. I think I said earlier... you have the editors and article you deserve.

Don't worry though: conveniently, I'm just a consiracy nutcase. BinaryGal (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean

talk 11:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I mean what I said... systematic abuse of Wikipedia. And you are most definitely part of the problem, not part of the solution, so please cease posting on this page. BinaryGal (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen a lot of different articles being treated the way you claim ITIL has been?Julzes (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the ITIL page: the abuse has been systematic and long term. What makes it a bigger deal is that this was paraded like a big red flag on that Admin page and elsewhere.... and not one of them undertook the full investigation it cried out for. Not one of them went through all the talk pages and complaints, or studied the market context they were made in.

Why not put a big sign on the front page: "WHISTLEBLOWERS NOT WELCOME HERE"?

That is the reality isn't it? I was banned for continuing to press for that full investigation.

What does that say about Wikipedia, and the integrity of its articles? BinaryGal (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to investigate. The fact is probably that the process that does not weight the credentials of editors ultimately means it has no experts in the administration of justice in regards to its more contentious subjects, and some of the truth may suffer. On the other hand, this allows a huge number of people to feel they are involved in an intellectual adventure. If people felt they had to defer to the subject-local authorities with every change they wanted to make, they probably wouldn't be here en masse at all. If you have other subjects than ITIL that you are interested in, I suggest you get yourself out of this hole and move along.Julzes (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When systematic abuse is identified, to be credible, Wikipedia has to have a sound mechanism to investigate and address the issue. But It doesn't. It has a hierarchy which pretends to be functionally capable, but in reality is populated with individuals who are too lazy to adequately research, and too lacking in the principles upon which the project was initialled formed.

The ITIL article is a sham and a sales front: a gross misrepresnetation of the subject. How many more articles are like that? A would guess a lot, because the hierarchy here don't actually care.

I have lived the truth of that statement. They, however, have embraced vested interest and abusers, and have silenced the whistleblower. I guess in many organizations that would be considered to be some sort of corruption.

A hole? I am at peace with everything I have done. I don't want to edit other articles because it would merely add credibility to something which simply doesn't merit it. BinaryGal (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add credibility? All it will do is change the subject. There are lots of contentious articles. Watch

After this experience, and what amounts to sanctioned abuse of an article and indeed of myself, I do not view Wikipedia as credible. I have absolutely no intention of adding any more value to any part of it, as it has shown itself to have lost sight of its principles.

There will be a considerable number of articles which are corrupt, and 'owned' by commercial interests, but Wikipedia doesn't just turn a blind eye, it persecutes those who identify it. BinaryGal (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all volunteer, and it's not well organized. It's the process, not the institution. I'm sorry you feel persecuted, but you've spent a lot of time on this for nothing, so I can understand your reaction. Sorry you won't be editing here ever again unless you change your mind. I'm sure you don't have to do much to get back your rights.Julzes (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a multi-level hierarchy of people. For example, administrators. The abuse was paraded in front of them. They took the decision to brush it under the carpet, and persecute the whistleblower instead. That is basically what happened.

I don't want any part of it, nor any association with the abusers, or those who pretend to be principled arbitors yet are anything but that. I won't be back, but will certainly pass on my experience here to others. BinaryGal (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll look into it in 2025 if the records still exist. I'll be busy until then.Julzes (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flippant remarks don't help. I have simply taken the decision not to be part of an environment in which corruption/abuse is ignored and honest editors marginalized or banned. The best outcome thereafter is that the environment itself is more widely exposed. BinaryGal (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was an honest statement of my plans, not a flippant remark. I can understand why you might have taken it that way, though. At any rate, if you were to find other examples than this one case, you would be on more solid ground. If you have no intention of trying to find them, then I doubt wider exposure is going to be very easy.Julzes (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In actual fact I am aware of other abuses, but that isn't the issue. The issue is that here there was systematic abuse: the red flag was raised and the result was that they chose to back the abusers and ban the whistleblower, without ever properly investigating the abuse.

That is a failure with Wikipedia itelf: a process failure and a moral/ethical failure.

For ethical and moral reasons I no longer want anything to do with such an enterprise, either with the abusers, or those who so readily support them. They deserve each other, and they don't deserve honest people associating with them.

I will simply expose the nature of Wikipedia through my experiences when the opportunity presents, not to mention the abusers. BinaryGal (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]