The sheer audacity and volume of lies being spewed forth by the folks on WikiEN-L these days are really something to behold! Just when you think they can't possibly get any more egregiously dishonest and hyperbolic, they turn it up another notch!


Total Lie. None of these three are moderators, much less administrators here - and although Mr. Awbrey posts quite frequently, I'd hardly call him "influential." Mr. "Barber," whom we prefer to refer to as "Looch" because we care about the privacy of mostly-innocent people, hasn't posted anything whatsoever in months.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/085031.html

Far be it from me to defend Mr. Morrow, who didn't last anywhere near as long here as he did on Wikipedia, but jailed? For what, pray tell? There's nothing whatsoever about this that's obtainable by a search on his name, so where is he getting this supposed information?

When I was in school, I had a teacher who insisted that if you were going to say something bad about someone, you had to cite a source, even if that person was dead, and even if you were just asking if the bad thing were true (which always struck me as a bit of a Catch-22, but anyhoo)... I thought Wikipedia had rules about citing sources for things, but apparently they don't apply to User:JzG. And given his propensity for lying, I would have to assume this is just yet another one.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/085047.html

"Apparently" stalking? But he seemed so sure when he claimed that he'd been thrown in jail...

I took the trouble to actually look this up, and the chess player, Susan Polgar, received a very nasty blog comment from Morrow well over a year ago. It isn't particularly clear, but apparently this was in reaction to an incident involving another chess player, Sam_Sloan, who had claimed that Polgar and her manager/husband, Paul Truong, had posted multiple fake blog comments that effectively libeled him and prevented him from winning the presidency of the United States Chess Federation. He didn't get very far with the accusations, though. Anyway, the nature of the relationship between Sloan and Morrow is unclear - they may be friends IRL, I suppose - but either way, it's the only explanation that makes much sense.


"No regard" for the truth, eh? "Good at manipulation?" So why do I have such problems finding attractive women who want me solely for my amazingly sexy body?

I'd say we have at least as much regard for the truth as Mr. Morven does, at least. Unfortunately, that may not be saying much:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/084990.html

Total Lie. This has, quite simply, never happened. I defy Morven or anyone else to even cite one instance, much less prove it. And if he's referring to Katefan0 or Phil Sandifer, he'll have to come up with an example that actually fits the accusation, and didn't involve a simple request for an apology, or a prank.


Ridiculous. And how, exactly, do they intend to achieve these goals? By getting one BLP article deleted? By exposing one sock puppeteer who uses Wikipedia to promote a questionable investment strategy? Or by writing articles about obscure professional wrestling promoters that don't meet notability standards, and then getting really nasty when they're deleted?

Boy, that sure sounds like a fabulous plan for destroying one of the world's most popular websites! Dang, why didn't I think of those?


Just how many "lives" have we people "ruined," I wonder? I can't think of any... Can anyone else think of any? Maybe this is yet another... Total Lie? Though I can actually think of a few lives Wikipedia has ruined, though of course it would probably depend on how you define "ruined." I guess JoshuaZ's definition of "ruined" is slightly inconvenienced while doing the ol' social-networking thang on the computer.

And there's this, in relation to WP's "methods" of hunting down sock puppet accounts:

Hmm. Why not just come right out and say, "we determine this based solely on appearances alone"? Then you wouldn't have to keep lying out your asses, right? You might even get something useful done "for the encyclopaedia."


Wrong again, robot-boy! How about a battle between those who wish to preserve the tradition of high-quality, professionally-produced reference materials against the army of hacks, vicious nerds, and POV pushers who are threatening to destroy it? That's how I prefer to look at it, anyway.

But that's just me.

For the record, here are my goals:

Objectives

My primary objective is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.

My secondary objective is to examine the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by any given policy, culture, or organizational architecture.

My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are demonstrably falling short of best practices.

A very nice collection Somey, no doubt we will be adding to it every time they throw another lie out there.

In Guy's eyes then, those among us who are Wikipedia editors and admins will soon be targets to be eliminated, after all if they are posting here they aren't being good Wikipedians are they.

And as for the battle JoshuaZ speaks of, it seems this "battle" or as I like to see it a "war of attrition" will only be decided by which side breaks first or which side runs out of necessary funds, methinks it won't be us, especially since many of us believe it is our solemn duty to expose the corruption and dangers of Wikipedia.

Thread discipline is just going all to hell in hand basket.

Holy cats, I forgot this one!

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/085053.html


Total, outright, complete lie. This is such a huge lie, it should probably be called something else, so as not to give lies a needlessly bad name!

Naturally, I defy anyone, anywhere, at any time, to find and post links to this "open discussion" of "who" our visitors are according to the site's access logs, as if it were even possible to determine identities based on IP addresses alone! The only people who can look at those logs are Selina and myself... Selina comes around about once a week (though a bit more recently, God bless her), and I haven't bothered to even look at any access logs since July, much less post details about them.

However, I do have a standing offer for the WP'ers: If they'll send me a list of IP addresses for a person whom we've been saying is a victim of an abusive ban for sock puppetry - say, User:Runcorn - I'll check not only the raw access logs, but our registration and posting data too, and if there are matches that aren't proxies, I'll stop pointing out their massive hypocrisy and general shittiness about it forever.

I'd say it's pretty safe to make that offer, don't you?

And not all of us are banned and some like Somey have never edited on WP.

It is very difficult to say that there is coordination on this forum. It would not be right to say "WR is out to get WP" but rather "Certain individuals on WR are out to get WP." I try not to say the royal we too much on this forum lest I'm told "Who's 'we,' white man?"

I am not against an online encyclopedia. I am not against a free online encyclopedia. But as a reader and consumer, I want to know if I have a good product. I have the utmost sympathy for those who sincerely try to collaborate and get the facts right. There are too many flaws in WP, however, caused by a bad system and bad apples.

If you read down the "Featured editors?" thread more, you'll see Durova compare us to the backwards people who called Galileo's theories "witchcraft." I'm not in a great mood to discuss the historical inaccuracies there (and this isn't the place to discuss historical inaccuracies anyway), but I take umbrage with characterizing me and a few others here of wanting to destroy the concept of a free online encyclopedia. WP can either reform (which some here think is possible) or be replaced by something far better.

A prerequisite to coordination is an overarching objective.

As near as I can tell, no such overarching objective has ever been stated or agreed to.

Guy Chapman appears to be gunning for SlimVirgin's title as Pathological Liar Of The First Order («PLOTFO»). Indeed, he would already have her beat if it were not for the fact that such a large fraction of his fractious line of Wiki-Prevarication is so totally derivative on her old material.

But that is the not the most disturbing thing, as a performance like that is just the norm for Guy.

The most schlocking thing is the dimwitted reaction of his audience, on the Wikienlist and Wikipedia both. The fact that they suck up his lies without even thinking to ask for concrete evidence — not to mention the fact that ordinary Wikipeons get tossed out on their rears for doing 1% of the damage and dumbage that he does every day — now that is the Truly Remarkable Phenom.

Jonny

*off-topic

I remember exactly what song the topic is referring to!

Do you think they're just worn out? Sick of constantly hearing it, unable to make any kind of rational counter-argument that won't get them shouted down and accused of "trolling," and just hoping, desperately, that if they ignore him he'll eventually shut the hell up?

I seem to recall one person - "Steve Summit"? - posting something that reflected that possibility, but obviously he's talking to a brick wall... Although brick walls are usually much more honest, I suppose. And it's impossible not to notice how methodical they've been about the gradual demonization of Mr. Tobias - that's almost fully achieved at this point, isn't it? Funny, I never thought I'd end up feeling sorry for him!

I've always tried to avoid getting too heavily into defending our right to exist, because the mere act of defending it makes it seem like they might have some sort of point, but it's like they all woke up this morning with a coordinated plan to post unusually nasty lies about us. Why, it's almost like... a massive conspiracy!

They seem to view WR as some sort of one organized body with a bunch of people who think alike and are all there to get WP down.

Maybe it has something to do with the peculiar mix of subcultures in which I tried to grow up as a kid. I think that I've always understood about the {{Insert Name Of Your Ravourfite Hate Group Here}} — they are just trying to make the world safe for their peculiar Form Of Ignorance (FOI). In doing that they are remarkably consistent in a coarse practical sense — though not of course in any kind of logical sense, since their actions belie the noble-sounding public half of their rhetoric. What I have never understood, though, is all the "good people" who stand by and let the parade of broomsticks turn into the parade of guns, as they really know it will someday. If I were to gauge matters solely by the gap between action and belief, then I guess I would be forced to accord even less respect for the spectators than I do for the {{Insert Name Of Your Ravourfite Hate Group Here}}.

Jon Awbrey

Poor Guy, he just tries so hard to build himself up, but he always forgets that IRL you can't just plan your information on WP to make things so. Putting the Ipod business aside for a minute, Guy has this thing for the French organist Marie-Claire Alain. He has even claimed to have met her on this page, has added a connection to an English Organ festival where he works as a volunteer. (Conflict of interest, Guy? You should at least add sources...)

Anyway, I happen to know her. I asked her whether she knew of a Guy Chapman and even showed her his photo on the web. She doesn't remember him at all, even after I showed her the connection to this festival.

So, I wonder whether or not Mr. Chapman is able to tell the difference between his fantasies or reality? Or whether he lives in a world populated by the contents of his Ipod, various cameos by Big Bust models and his bicycle helmet?

In any case, Mr. Chapman deserves our pity, rather than our anger.

Who are the people on WR banned by WP for trying to destroy it? Poetlister, who is an admin on another Wiikimedia project? Taxwoman, who was made an admin on Wikinfo by Fred Bauder? Maybe the powers that be on Wikimedia should get their act together.

Sloan was recently blocked by Viridae because of his lawsuit against Polgar, Troung and another WP editor.
Amorrow apparently knows Sloan well. He created his bio, and used various sockpuppets since he was banned to maintain it. Some of those edits were rolled back recently, though. There's a long-running conversation between the two on Sloan's talk page. This passage is particularly telling.

Projection.

They're like that, so they assume WR is.

They're wrong, of course, but that doesn't stop them from twisting reality to suit their theories.

This guy is a most repellent creep, as evidenced by his likening himself to William Chestor Minor

Strange how my ultimate reaction to that thread was the polar opposite of what I expected going into it. Meaning, Somey's summary had me thinking I was going to come away disliking Guy Chapman even more, but in fact I'm truly beginning to feel pity for him. That dude is tormented, and it's probably incapacitating.



Please be honest: does anybody here consider my profile to be a "high" one? In 15 months I've posted 157 times. In slightly less time, "Awbrey" has posted about 3,500 times. Even the two-week old newcomer Moulton beats me by over 100 posts (and counting). I've always considered myself to be a bit of a low-grade lurker here...so much so I don't even know who fellow high profile enemy of WP "Barber/JB196/Looch" is.

Anyway, I have to assume others on that list are getting a sense of Guy's growing break with reality. As I've said here before: Guy, get help, and then try to be nicer.

It's only been two weeks?

Seems more like a lifetime.

Even if it's now been demonstrated that ontogeny doesn't recapitulate phylogeny.

At least a high quality lurker. You certainly would be welcomed to post more.

Maybe it would help if I posted more frequently under the influence?

Jonny

Being able to understand why that's funny (or at least ironic) might be the first time I've applied anything I learned in embryology. Thanks!

Have you considered applying for re-instatement on WP under the disclosure that you were DUI of Chilean wine the entire time you were editing WP?

Chilean wine - It allows you to tell several wikipricks to fuck off, and get off with it - it's WikiLove Lubricant of the 'Naughts.

I doubt if Mr. Wales could pay me enough to work on Wikipedia full time again.

That is, of course, just my initial bargaining position — I will naturally entertain any reasonable offer.

Jonny

Following on from what I said earlier about Mr Chapman, his wiki-addiction and the law of diminishing returns, I'd say he was projecting his own feelings of futility as the returns get ever less exciting.

So now he wants attention and affirmation that he's still the center of attention on WP. The only problem is that this will not be enough either, so he'll either get more and more abusive in order to get the negative attention from WR that he craves to feed his diminishing ardour, or he'll pick a fight with someone on WP in order to leave in a blaze of glory.

For some reason Guy needs to feel important rather than impotent, possibly because he suffers from low self-esteem.

The problem is the WP is a fickle lover, and Guy might just get a kick to the crotch as a reminder of what happens when you think you're essential.

Here's yet another howler:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170915402

So not only does he totally ignore the content of a website when pronouncing his fantasy-world conceptions of it, he totally ignores the URL, too! Hey, JzG, have you checked the domain name on the WikiEN-L archive lately? It may surprise you to learn that it starts out with "http://lists.wikimedia.org"! Imagine that!

Of course, I guess Wikipedia probably defines "independent" differently from the rest of the world, along with so many other words.

There's not much point in even addressing the ludicrous idea that WP doesn't suppress dissent, of course. The very fact that they call it "dissent" in the first place should tell you quite a lot about their mindset going in, I should think.

These are, of course, just the ordures of Burbling Uffish Falsehood that the G-Men, Guy & Gerard, Incorpulent — who dominate the list at this moment trying to out-suck each other — can only get away with uffering in Cloistered Fora whose Cluster Ushers gag and bind and toss you out of as soon as you start to say anything that they find it the least bit uncomfortable to listen to.

BTDT, just more of their BS …

But what these Wikipediots fail to grasp is that they are making defamatory statements about real people.

That has consequences.

These Wikipediots make defamatory statements about real people in the public spaces of Wikipedia and its various discussion groups.

That has consequences.

These Wikipediots make defamatory statements about real people in a way that denies the subjects of their statements the the right of reply in those same spaces.

That has consequences.

These Wikipediots make defamatory statements about real people in away that not only ignores the facts of the matter but that blocks inquiry into the facts of the matter and that thus obstructs the pursuit of the truth about the facts of the matter.

That has consequences.

These Wikipediots forget that the targets of their deliberately misleading and persistently false defamations do not cease to exist simply because these Wikipediots have elected to ignore their objections and protests.

We will see the consequences of that.

Jon Awbrey

Yeah, funny thing back in August, when Cyde launched the AN/I on SlimVirgin and everything started coming apart, "Frank Bellowes" started asking about Jayjg on wikien-l. Soon Jimbo found himself in a non-Kansas place and accused Bellowes of being me (or so it would seem). I, then a subscriber to the list, tried several times to post a note saying nothing more than I had never before posted to that list. Of course, not one of my posts survived moderation.

On a related note, look at this overt oddness by Jimbo in response to the observation that Jayjg had not edited for three weeks and was thus AWOL:
It's now been more than three months. Can Jayjg be called "absent" yet? Or would that be lying?

Yet Another Act Of Welcoming Open Discussion (YAAOWOD) by JustZisGuyY'Know

I suppose we should start a list of these, but I'm not sure we can afford another server.

Jonny

Chapman's funniest line, in my opinion, was this:

On Wikipedia, harassment and attacks are not acceptable.

I think he meant to say, "are not only acceptable, they're encouraged."

Greg

And Another …

It begins to appear that anyone who asks an intelligent question or who makes an intelligent remark in Wikipedia is automatically suspected — and to be suspected in Wikipedia is to be executed in Wikipedia — of being a sockpuppet.

∑1 Over Dey Ought To Start Thinking About The Implications Of That …

Jon Awbrey

There are moments of clarity when it all seems very simple. This is one of those moments.

People who are constantly making false statements — no matter the place where they make them, no matter the cause of their doing so, pathological dishonesty or recalcitrant ignorance — those people cannot be trusted to control a medium of information distribution.

And when it comes to how long it will take the general public to figure out what those people who administer Wikipedia under the names of SlimVirgin, JzG, ad nauseum really are, then I can think of nothing that says it better than that line from Braveheart, a form of words to the following effect —

If you cannot see what those people are —
then I fear that your judgment is beyond repair.

Yes, it really is that simple.

Jon Awbrey

Homo Schleppians is not especially well known for good judgment.

And if I'm wrong about that, then here I am exercising poor judgment.

∑× people befuddle themselves and others 4 the sheer fun of it.

∑× people befuddle themselves and others 2xcuse their intellectual effeteness and their moral cowardice.

I guess the salvation for The Wikipedia Review will be if it remains a low-pressure zone where people can tell the truth about Wikipedia and other Wiki Mediated Projects — when and if they get a round tuit.

Jon Awbrey

No, but Wikipedia says that you're Piperdown, and he's posted quite a bit. If Wikipedia says it, it must be true, so you've obviously been socking with a second WR account for no apparent reason.

Aren't we all socks of Runcorn... or even Jon Awbrey?

I'm a sock of JzG myself - silly of me to use a similar name.

I once tried to walk a furlong in one of Jonny's sox, but I ended up in a self-induced torpor and lost track of what point I was not trying to forget.

Jimmy crack Runcorn,
And I don't care —
My mind has gone away …

An editor has expressed a concern that Jon Awbrey may be a sock puppet of Bare In Mind, but then that editor ceased to be concerned anymore.

Jonny Cache, on be½ of Jon Awbrey, on be½ of Bare In Mind

Does my finely honed link-twisted sleuth nose sniff out un toxicomane avoué d'oignons?

Yes, I believe it does.

Jonny

No. He meant "unless I'm making them"

(Of course, this same principle applies to the entire gang, but you already know that....)


I am actually Jon Awbrey, Wordbomb, BlueAnthere (just kidding BlueAardvark), and a former pornstar from Bomis, all wrapped into one.

Just because it hasn't been wikisleuthed yet, doesn't make it *not* true.

Well Cripes. You are living in England and probably in a similar way, so using the standard metric, you *are* 'that Guy'.

Believe it or not I first thought this was the case. I was wondering how WR and WP both were allowing such a double faced individual.

It took me a few days too to figure out the JzG and Guy weren't the same person. Although it should be immediately obvious, JzG is so unpredictable in his reactions that I thought that he was just behaving differently here...

Guy should have "NOT JzG" in his profile somewhere...

WR wouldn't allow such a thing. As for WP, I can't comment.

I'm waiting for JzG to put on his user page that he isn't me.

Still more delusional and/or bald-faced lies from User:JzG:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/085694.html


What an unbelievable, lying, self-deluded fuckwit this asswipe is!

For the record: Wikipedia Review would prefer to maintain the current setup, whereby any links to this website are expunged by Wikipedia as soon as they're added, because people seem to notice the heavy-handed, fascistic way it's done - and it drives far more traffic to this site than simply having the link sit there, without it being argued over incessantly by JzG and his gang of morons.

The "constant harping" is all coming from them, or more specifically, him. If he would just shut his pie-hole for a few minutes, jeez, maybe they could actually get something constructive accomplished over there? I know it sounds crazy to even imagine it, but...

If there were no links to this website on Wikipedia whatsoever, it wouldn't make a bit of difference. If anything, it would make us more popular than we've ever been. And does he really think there are no other ways for websites to promote themselves? What an arrogant, self-aggrandizing dickhead.

Do we have to publicly thank Wikipedia for removing all those links before Mr. Chapman stops deluding himself? Do we have to beg them to remove more of them? Do I have to make a Youtube video telling them that we just don't care about the actual links, so they can see the sincerity in my eyes when I say that we're only interested in it because it shows how utterly and completely dysfunctional they are?

What does it take?

Aaaaaannnnd.... They're at it again, folks! They just WILL NOT STOP!

At least we know now that Jayjg didn't spend his vacation time learning the correct meaning of the term "strawman." As we've pointed out many times in the past, he apparently believes that it means "attempt to impose extreme-minority rule by cabal-sockpuppet decree." He also tries to distinguish between "BADSITES" and "link-redaction enforced by threat of banning" in general, more than nearly anyone else on WP, failing miserably of course, since there really is no difference whatsoever.

Here's a translation for those who are having trouble with this particular word-substitution:

It's much more comprehensible when you translate it, don't you think?

Wondering who is doing more damage to the project, them or us.

festival of stupid? I'm wondering what is he expecting from the fondation by constant labels and BS accusations? A position? From the dumb way he interprete the policies he is supposed to enforce alone we see who the stupid is.

Long ago I joined the mailing list because I injoyed reading it, slowly the chatters seem to have taken it as hostage... Stopped reading it after having been banned, seem to be pathologically infected now.

I read all of Jayjg's mailing list posts, and as nearly as I can tell, he's trying to push Slim's revisionist position on DennyColt. This is how I imagine Slim would explain her position: "DennyColt started BADSITES, and I thought it was a good idea. Then with all the support from people like me, it went too far and became absurd in practice. Therefore, I no longer support it. Not only that, but it's obvious that DennyColt was a sock of some evil person from Wikipedia Review or some other cesspool just like it. It was a strawman setup from the beginning."

That's just my best guess of what Slim/Jayjg are saying — Jayjg is somewhat incoherent today, and it's difficult to interpret him. But it seems to me that if he's going to return, he should have slipped in quietly through the back door the way Slim did, instead of using a battering ram through the front door.

In any case, I think we owe Jayjg our thanks for reviving a bit of wikidrama that we all thought was already played out. I doubt that any of Wikipedia Review's socks could have accomplished this.

By the way, I don't have any socks in this particular fight. All of my 200 socks are busy campaigning for Durova for ArbCom.

I believe that JzG himself has a special shortcut to the WR on his browser taskbar (adjacent to the shortcut for www.dailybigboobs.com,) since he seems to account for a very substantial portion of this site's traffic all by himself. He obviously doesn't need a link to find it.

By golly, I think I've figured out what Jayjg is saying.

1. The cabal has the right to kick butt on Wikipedia.
2. There should not be a "kicking butt" policy, because this allows lesser editors to kick butt too.

Here are the unspoken subsections for the second point:

a. If non-cabalists are empowered to kick butt by virtue of a policy, then too many sore butts will draw attention to the policy.
b. If the policy is questioned, any cabal behavior that is covered by that policy will also be called into question.

Ergo, 3. The cabal must never be questioned — our power must not be held accountable.