http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=156326290

He or she (Anyone know?) said in his/her edit summary "if we posted endless praise for wikipedia on WR, you'd delete it. so, i delete your endless complaints from our website" while blanking a comment on a talk page."

User:ACBest also claims "Pfft... those lot on Wikipedia review are mostly banned people "

But the main thing is that Wikipedia Review wouldn't delete praise for Wikipedia.

I would call that misinformed on Deskana's part.

The claim that we delete praises for Wikipedia is absolute nonsense. Everyone has a right to their opinion & we don't have to agree with each other all the time.

Heh, anyone want to checkuser me

The discussion is continuing on Deskana's talkpage at the moment.

He. I love the fact you call it libel though. I don't think this site has any sort of positive reputation that I could even attempt to damage.

Hmm...you wouldn't delete it, but you would ignore or (more likely) try to explain why Wikipedia is the most tear-wi-bull-iss-tick and horwible website ever to whoever was the one praising Wikipedia. Any case, you would react to it in a way similar to Deskana. Similar in your own...unique...unexplainable way. Don't try to make me explain the unexplainable.

For the record, Deskana is a "he" Took me ages to figure that out myself ...

I don't think we're all that bad, there's just a bit of a lower signal to noise ratio here than you would find in a conventional lobby group. But if you take the time to look for the serious criticism then there's plenty of it.



There is very little in common with the users of this website other than a dislike of (at least some aspects of) Wikipedia. You would certainly get some 'interesting' replies, but you would also get some more thoughtful users who would argue your points. Or possibly even concede them!

Edit to add: Contrast any of that to the rapant censorship going on at Deskana's talk page. Do you seriously think that an indefinitely blocked user is not allowed to edit Wikipedia? What incentive is there to reform?

No.. no. I'd delete it. It's an old trick I learnt at Wikipedia to control the floor and silence my enemies.
(Update:the above was an example of irony for those of a cultural disposition).

Fortunately, occasions where people come here to point out good things about WP are getting so rare now that they're not worth bothering about. And better - what points remain are usually so hollow that they do critics a generous favour.

Have you ever praised Wikipedia here? Perhaps you don't understand. I, on the other hand, have, multiple times. I know the result.

Big fat lulz. Had you actually reformed and edited constructively, you wouldn't have ended up blocked. You passing off you block as being simply because you were blocked before is nothing short of comical.

I guess I chose wrong on the verb.



I'm sure it's from some ancient fancy word or something and cool if you know what it means, but it should be Deskano then for male.





Deskana has an account here so he can test his claim "if we posted endless praise for wikipedia on WR, you'd delete it. so, i delete your endless complaints from our website" while blanking a comment on a talk page"






I've seen admins just say "just go make a new account"

Which proves Deskana's point. So there is nothing to discuss on this thread anymore.

I've certainly praised individual Wikipedians.

LamontStormstar, I registered my account here before you did. I don't have an account here to simply test if I'd get banned. I had an account here to make comments. Deskana also doesn't actually mean anything, I just made it up. I can't remember how, but I suspect I just hit random keys until I got something vaguely pronouncable.

Care to give an example?



True dat!

Oh it's not about me, I'm probably well beyond reform. But what is the purpose in an indefinite block? The truth is that most people can come back straight away with another account. Can't be done within the rules exactly though, can it?

Sure. Wikipedians who critisised Wikipedia, for sure. But how about Wikipedia as a whole?

I was saying you should test your claim that "if we posted endless praise for wikipedia on WR, you'd delete it."

Um...that's not what I understood it meant.

The silliest thing is how people really really really hate to unblock an indef blocked account even after years.

What is there to praise? About all I've got is making knowledge freely avaliable. That's a laudable aim. Anyway, I've praised Wikipedians who seem to have drunk the kool-aid as well. Indeed the most recent was probably User:HighInBC/H/Until(1==2), and I don't think he's ever criticised Wikipedia from "my side" of the arguement.

Why should they? What makes them sure the person has changed any?

I have no intention of testing my claim. I'm not here simply to disrupt this website, as I think that'd be rather childish.

I praise it all the time. I give the example that if I want to research a tree or a fish, or the demographics and history of Bangor Maine, its an EXCELLENT resource. Its the many articles that engender controversy, and there are THOUSANDS, where Wiki is broken, and they REFUSE to aknowledge that, and deal with it. I remember an arbitration case about a CAR. (Honda 2000) A couple stubborn boneheads couldn't agree so a dozen admins and half a dozen ARBCOM members spent weeks debating a CAR and mindless interpetations of WP.

'The sum of all human failings' should be Wiki's motto.

Perhaps, then, you might do it because it would be an interesting topic to debate?

I suppose the point is that plenty of WP admins come here publicly and say what they like without having their posts blanked, let alone getting blocked. Anybody silly enough to become a WR admin under their WP name will get blocked on WP (sorry, Poetlister).

Not like I don't agree with you but...I don't agree with you. Sorry! The mainspace stuff is about real world happenings. Does that mean everything about earth is a failure. (Excuse me if I'm not making any sense)



Funny, though, Kato (or someone else. I can't quite remember.) said he would delete stuff like that.

Nobody would do that. Anyone caught doing that would be punished by having to listen to Somey's jokes non-stop for an hour.

I rather like that.

I think if that did happen it would be bad for the forum.

I think the only stuff deleted was anti-semitism. Also most people banned here are banned from Wikipedia, too. Amorrow, Malber. Grace Note isn't banned from Wikipedia, though.

You never know. Someone might end up deleting praise of Wikipedia. Then be 'punished'. But the result wouldn't change, they still would have deleted it.

Sorry, Rochelle. There appears to be a misunderstanding.

Read this for some background information on how these things work.

Ouch.

The conflict resolution process on Wiki is so broken that it brings out all the human failings that IMHO far overshadow the valuable contributions of millions of editors.

IMHO if Wiki were serious about 'the product' they would start with banning IP posters, make everyone have an account, a valid email address, and prevent any individual from having more than one account.

Wiki and Jimbo care about quantity not quality.

*Sigh* Why do I always get such patronising links?

Well... I was only trying to help.

That would hardly be punishment enough.

However, I can think of ∑thing that would …

Jonny

I'll tell you a secret (which isn't a very secret secret, I'm afraid): Anything that's deleted can easily be reversed.

Duh. But my point was that it still would have been deleted, no matter if it were reversed or not. Like bruising yourself. Even when the bruise heals, you still know you had it.

What would be deleted?

Don't tell us —

Tell them !!!

Jonny

The theorheticel critizizm.

Go on praise Wikipedia, I dare you.

*Draws pistol*

Kato: Praise of Wikipedia, it seems.

I'll take you up on that. I don't care you weren't being serious.
Okay:

Wikipedia is the best best thing on the internet.

My arguments, which are pro-Wikipedia and specifically critical of admin abuse, are often not taken very well on either WP or WR, but there's a key difference: on WP, they took me to arbitration to punish me and force me to not speak my views for two years, even after I offered many times to shut up if their penalties were not imposed (or if they were lifted after the fact). On WR, people just argue with me when I express pro-Wikipedia viewpoints; at worst, they may sneer a little bit while doing it. Who handles contrary viewpoints in a more mature way? There's absolutely no comparison. The ArbCom and the top admins are so absurdly insecure and draconian that they will harshly punish someone just for expressing the view that they are too harsh. On WR, those representing its mainstream viewpoint just present a rebuttal like sane human beings, wrong though they may be. To try to paint the two with the same brush when it comes to handling criticism is downright comical.

I agree 100%




Wait a year, and we may just as well say the same about English Wikipedia.

I agree 100% apart from the bolded word.

The thing is that any damage to Wikipedia Review's reputation was caused by people from Wikipedia. Wikipedia Review also has a positive reputation, caused by exposing several of Wikipedia's major flaws, and being responsible for virtually all of Wikipedia's scandals since Wikipedia Review started (I mean that we uncovered them, the problems that led to the scandals were already in existence). Wikipedia Review gets a misleading reputation because of comments from certain quarters, suggesting that the site's aim is to trash individuals, to whinge about bans, or all sorts of things that isn't the site's aim at all. If they could state what the site's aim truly was, and then perhaps comment on some things that incidentally happen, then it wouldn't be a bash of the reputation. But that happens far too rarely.

It is Wikipedia's reputation that is in question. It doesn't matter what a few wikipedians think of Wikipedia Review. This is some low maintenance discussion forum. Kids aren't quoting Messrs LamontStormStar or Unrepentant Vandal in their school essays. (Not that I know of anyway)