I see you've run NYB off wikipedia. Pathetic really.
Whilst I'm not overly optimistic, Wikipedia's community is closer now than it has ever been to doing something to reduce BLP damage. No, it won't be enough - but getting the community to begin to take some (limited) responsibility is the start. And that start has taken months of effort; people who cared, investing time and energy in trying to do something practical about the problems people here rightly identified. And that effort wore us down.
And you people undermine that same effort. You reveal yourself as nothing but the vindictive "attack site" that wikipediots like to see you as. Now they can dismiss your arguments, circle the wagons, and accuse those who have been working on this of pandering to trolls. Maybe they are right. And maybe that's what you want.
Now, you can of course dismiss this. "Bad wikipedia can't reform, it needs utterly destroyed. And we are the ones to do it." Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, where are your boasted lawsuits? Where are your long-promised writs? Bluff - it's just the dark side of the same silly role-playing game. You enjoy being the evil enemy outside, and they enjoy demonising you - and everyone seems happy. (Unless of course they are genuinely concerned about wikipedia and living people.)
Perhaps vindictive anger is a predictable (even justifiable) response to your treatment by wikipedia - but that does not make it either rational or effective.
So, before you undermine the (perhaps fairly ineffective) strategy I long laboured with before I quit, and before you run any more allies off the site, what is your rational strategy? Tell me realistically how it takes us from where we are to whatever better place you'd like to see us go? Or is the goal perpetual warfare for its own sake?
Full Version: Shooting oneself in the foot
I'm sorry bit am I missing the bit where he gets run off? I was following the discussion on citation and referencing and expert input (PHG and the Mongol Alliance thread). That involved Brad, it was generally polite and constructive, with the odd un-constructive comment, but that was from Awbrey what do you expect. In a site like this which does not generally ban users, you have to expect some flak now and then.
So am I missing something?
So am I missing something?
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 29th April 2008, 3:02am) 
QUOTE(ColScott @ Tue 29th April 2008, 1:15am)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Mon 28th April 2008, 4:10pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 28th April 2008, 11:00pm)
QUOTE(Gold heart @ Mon 28th April 2008, 5:56pm)
You are quite famous with 6,300 hits.
There's only about 275 distinct hits, after Google eliminates duplicates. And of those, the very last one is my personal blog. Goes to show how popular that one is, eh?
Compare that to the MIT faculty member whose biography I got slapped down for editing. She has 8560 hits on Google, of which 820 are unique.
I was nearly famous once, I was the only person with my name who came up on the search, but these days I rank no 4 (courtesy of amazon.co.uk) after a Yorkshire photographer and a London kitchen fitter.
I was really depressed to find, due to an administrative error, that I am not even unique for my full given name and date of birth. I discovered why my licence number ends (ignoring 2 check digits) in an 8 when most other people's ends in a 9 - it is because some other beggar passed applied for their licence before me. I did discover their address too, due to the confusion.
Back in 1998 I was the top hit for my name
I'm just a nobody now. A mere 250,000th in the Amazon rankings.ahh Google rankings. I managed to, thanks to the fans, get the thread about Joshua Zelinksy's Body Odor into his top 3 hits. The one on my board about Jimmy Wales the porn king is rather high, though not top ten. If we are interested in Brad and his firm getting recognized for cultish behavior, how about this one?
http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread....241#post1158241
Then Brad can sue me for definition of character, three counts of mopery and exercising free speech. Like when his cult allows children to edit my "biography" and accuse me of shit I never did.
I know I know. He is an innocent man. Tell it to Billy Joel.
All right, you can stop now. I honestly don't understand why I of all people have been chosen to be targeted for this week's campaigns, but it's become pretty obvious that those of you who want me to no longer edit Wikipedia, are going to get what you want. I'll post a message on my Wikipedia userpage in the morning when there are fewer tears in my eyes, and that will be the end of it.
Goodbye.
Newyorkbrad
This
Ha! what a crock of bullshit!
Nobody 'ran' NYB off WP. News-flash Doc:
He ELECTED to leave, (& can return any time he likes) which is a damn sight more freedom than is given to the multitudes of editors who find the WP banhammer summarily dropped on them for having the effrontery to know their subject and not meekly back down to the POV pushing resident WP:OWNERs infesting the 'encyclopedia anyone (allegedly) can edit'.
Nobody 'ran' NYB off WP. News-flash Doc:
He ELECTED to leave, (& can return any time he likes) which is a damn sight more freedom than is given to the multitudes of editors who find the WP banhammer summarily dropped on them for having the effrontery to know their subject and not meekly back down to the POV pushing resident WP:OWNERs infesting the 'encyclopedia anyone (allegedly) can edit'.
QUOTE(Count DeMonet @ Tue 29th April 2008, 10:40am)
Ha! what a crock of bullshit!
Nobody 'ran' NYB off WP. News-flash Doc:
He ELECTED to leave, (& can return any time he likes) which is a damn sight more freedom than is given to the multitudes of editors who find the WP banhammer summarily dropped on them for having the effrontery to know their subject and not meekly back down to the POV pushing resident WP:OWNERs infesting the 'encyclopedia anyone (allegedly) can edit'.
So, revenge? Tit for tat? But not rational or strategic. As I thought.
I'm sorry Doc, but are we supposed to burst into tears when someone leaves Wikipedia after they've realised that WP is screwing real people's lives and there's nothing that can be done about it?
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 29th April 2008, 10:20am)
And you people undermine that same effort.
Who are "you people"? The great majority of us were opposing what was being done to NYB. I myself did so using giant letters, if you recall.
Let me make it clear. I do not support or condone anyone who calls someone's workplace over their conduct on Wikipedia or elsewhere on the Interwebs.
I also don't support Wikipedia's constant abuse of real people through BLPs which are no more and no less than libel. You know it Doc, and the rest of us know it as well. Wikipedia affects the lives of real people and some teenage idiot who replies with "Resistance is futile" had better stop masturbating to Star Trek and pay attention to the real world with laws to prevent this sort of abuse.
So when Wikipedia indulges in this sort of systematic abuse, are you surprised when a target decides to fight fire with fire?
I'm not.
While Wikipedia thinks it can get away with allowing biographies of living people to be edited by faceless people and nobody is responsible, these sorts of things will continue to happen. I'm sure Don Murphy would rather be producing movies than fighting Wikipedia. I'm sure Daniel Brandt would rather get on with life than fight Wikipedia. I'm sure Patrick Byrne would. I'm sure Judd Bagley would.
If I were on Wikipedia for whatever reason I'm sure I would explore every possible avenue to get myself off there. I can't blame them for what they're doing.
I also don't support Wikipedia's constant abuse of real people through BLPs which are no more and no less than libel. You know it Doc, and the rest of us know it as well. Wikipedia affects the lives of real people and some teenage idiot who replies with "Resistance is futile" had better stop masturbating to Star Trek and pay attention to the real world with laws to prevent this sort of abuse.
So when Wikipedia indulges in this sort of systematic abuse, are you surprised when a target decides to fight fire with fire?
I'm not.
While Wikipedia thinks it can get away with allowing biographies of living people to be edited by faceless people and nobody is responsible, these sorts of things will continue to happen. I'm sure Don Murphy would rather be producing movies than fighting Wikipedia. I'm sure Daniel Brandt would rather get on with life than fight Wikipedia. I'm sure Patrick Byrne would. I'm sure Judd Bagley would.
If I were on Wikipedia for whatever reason I'm sure I would explore every possible avenue to get myself off there. I can't blame them for what they're doing.
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 29th April 2008, 10:42am)
So, revenge? Tit for tat? But not rational or strategic. As I thought.
Revenge? Nonsense. I merely point out to you the rank hypocrisy of coming here and trying to lambast WR for something that did not occur here (i.e. running Brad off WP) when that's precisesly what occurs on Wikipedia practically every single day!.
Once again, since you seem to entirely have missed the point: NYBs descision to no longer participate at Wikipedia is entirely elective and will last for only as long as he choses. So by what possible stretch of the imagination do you rationally conclude that WR has run NYB off WP?
NYB has run NYB off WP.
The Alienation of NewyorkBrad
Doc, will you work with me to salvage what we can of Brad's good will, so that he can continue to work for positive reform?
To my mind, Brad was singled out as a convenient scapegoat of the week to be held responsible for all the sins of the community. In a hoary, disgraceful, and banal drama dating back to Azazel, he was unceremoniously stripped of his dignity and pitched aside.
Those of us who have been through that idiotic drama ourselves can have some empathy for the heartbreak, alienation, and dispiriting acedia that Brad was made to endure this past week.
Doc, will you work with me to salvage what we can of Brad's good will, so that he can continue to work for positive reform?
To my mind, Brad was singled out as a convenient scapegoat of the week to be held responsible for all the sins of the community. In a hoary, disgraceful, and banal drama dating back to Azazel, he was unceremoniously stripped of his dignity and pitched aside.
Those of us who have been through that idiotic drama ourselves can have some empathy for the heartbreak, alienation, and dispiriting acedia that Brad was made to endure this past week.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 29th April 2008, 11:21am)
The Alienation of NewyorkBrad
Doc, will you work with me to salvage what we can of Brad's good will, so that he can continue to work for positive reform?
To my mind, Brad was singled out as a convenient scapegoat of the week to be held responsible for all the sins of the community. In a hoary, disgraceful, and banal drama dating back to Azazel, he was unceremoniously stripped of his dignity and pitched aside.
Those of us who have been through that idiotic drama ourselves can have some empathy for the heartbreak, alienation, and dispiriting acedia that Brad was made to endure this past week.
You're going to call him a poopyhead...again?
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 29th April 2008, 10:20am)
I see you've run NYB off wikipedia
One more angle on Brad "running himself off" - he has a further option, which is to declare pride in his contribution, screw the detractors, and stay.
It will be telling to see if he opts for that route.
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Tue 29th April 2008, 1:21pm)
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 29th April 2008, 10:20am)
I see you've run NYB off wikipedia
One more angle on Brad "running himself off" - he has a further option, which is to declare pride in his contribution, screw the detractors, and stay.
It will be telling to see if he opts for that route.
I think that Brad is proud of his association with Wikipedia and the contribution he has tried to make, which is not to say he is proud of all the Wikipedians he is associated with. I can understand that.
He made it clear to me in a private message that he does feel excessively threatened by some specific individuals, not the generic public, and this is why he is upset.
For some, NYB leaving Wikipedia would be the right outcome, but I don't think so. What I would hope is that the foundation belatedly recognise that they have a duty of care to the people involved in the project and if they had any respect for Brad they would take the effort to diagnose the underlying causes of this incident: which do not lie here, but are to do with the policies and management of Wikipedia which create a poisonous atmosphere. The fossilisation of the systems, where the community more and more is becoming fragmented into stalemates is something that the WMF need to step up to and recognise their responsibility for. I think if WMF stepped up to the plate and recognised their moral responsibility to intervene, then so many problems would quickly fall by the wayside. Perhaps, just perhaps, NYB could be a catalyst for this.
I've solidified my thinking on this. I don't want the community to retain its franchise - the community has broken Wikipedia. I want the WMF to take responsibility for policy and policing, and they need to put in place people with the skills to do it: and I suspect they will not be found within the Wikipedia community.
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 29th April 2008, 5:20am)
I see you've run NYB off wikipedia. Pathetic really.
Whilst I'm not overly optimistic, Wikipedia's community is closer now than it has ever been to doing something to reduce BLP damage. No, it won't be enough — but getting the community to begin to take some (limited) responsibility is the start. And that start has taken months of effort; people who cared, investing time and energy in trying to do something practical about the problems people here rightly identified. And that effort wore us down.
And you people undermine that same effort. You reveal yourself as nothing but the vindictive "attack site" that wikipediots like to see you as. Now they can dismiss your arguments, circle the wagons, and accuse those who have been working on this of pandering to trolls. Maybe they are right. And maybe that's what you want.
Now, you can of course dismiss this. "Bad wikipedia can't reform, it needs utterly destroyed. And we are the ones to do it." Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, where are your boasted lawsuits? Where are your long-promised writs? Bluff — it's just the dark side of the same silly role-playing game. You enjoy being the evil enemy outside, and they enjoy demonising you — and everyone seems happy. (Unless of course they are genuinely concerned about wikipedia and living people.)
Perhaps vindictive anger is a predictable (even justifiable) response to your treatment by wikipedia — but that does not make it either rational or effective.
So, before you undermine the (perhaps fairly ineffective) strategy I long laboured with before I quit, and before you run any more allies off the site, what is your rational strategy? Tell me realistically how it takes us from where we are to whatever better place you'd like to see us go? Or is the goal perpetual warfare for its own sake?
Doc,
In our secretly bleeding ♥-o-♥s, we really do simpathize with all recovering Wikipediots, especially the ones in their early days of recovery who are bound to have half their brains falling off the wagon at times. Others will cry along, perhaps, but it's precisely because I understand the SiriusMess of these critical Dog Days that you'll get nuttin' but
Tuff Wub 
from me.So Watch Out For That …
Jon
Another instance of Oxytocin Deficit Dishonor?
QUOTE(guy @ Tue 29th April 2008, 9:59am)
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 29th April 2008, 10:20am)
And you people undermine that same effort.
Who are "you people"? The great majority of us were opposing what was being done to NYB. I myself did so using giant letters, if you recall.
True, it isn't particularly fair to lump the whole of WR in with bottom feeders like ColScott and Brandt. As a long time lurker here, I'd say a fair number of the frequent contributors are rather fair minded individuals with very legitimate ideas and concerns about Wikipedia. The majority even manage to express those ideas coherently without being complete raging assholes.
QUOTE(guy @ Tue 29th April 2008, 9:59am)
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 29th April 2008, 10:20am)
And you people undermine that same effort.
Who are "you people"? The great majority of us were opposing what was being done to NYB. I myself did so using giant letters, if you recall.
As I recall, you (well, someone using giant letters anyway) disclaimed any connection to it. That's quite different from opposing it. If you're referring to the message I think you're referring to, you didn't take a stand on anything except not taking a stand. ...which is fine, I suppose, but let's call it what it is. (I'm thinking of one a couple days ago with large green letters, I can find it if there's confusion about what message I'm thinking of)
Have I said recently that I disapprove of anankastic tactics?
Just posted...
QUOTE(Statement by Newyorkbrad)
Statement by Newyorkbrad
For once I'll be brief. Due to some external events, which have the potential to affect not just me but many uninvolved people, I will not be able to continue editing.
I would like to thank everyone I have worked with here. The community has extended me extraordinary kindness and support. I am sorry for the pages that never got written and the FA that never got done. I apologize to the 552 people who voted for me for breaking my commitment to them, and to anyone whose case I never had the chance to review.
My thanks in advance for what any of you may write here. I request that no explicit reference be made here or elsewhere to the incidents prompting my departure.
The first available steward is requested to desysop this account without requiring any further postings or formalities. The Arbitration Clerks will remove my name from the list of arbitrators and per precedent will strike any votes I have cast on pending cases or matters.
Goodbye.
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
For once I'll be brief. Due to some external events, which have the potential to affect not just me but many uninvolved people, I will not be able to continue editing.
I would like to thank everyone I have worked with here. The community has extended me extraordinary kindness and support. I am sorry for the pages that never got written and the FA that never got done. I apologize to the 552 people who voted for me for breaking my commitment to them, and to anyone whose case I never had the chance to review.
My thanks in advance for what any of you may write here. I request that no explicit reference be made here or elsewhere to the incidents prompting my departure.
The first available steward is requested to desysop this account without requiring any further postings or formalities. The Arbitration Clerks will remove my name from the list of arbitrators and per precedent will strike any votes I have cast on pending cases or matters.
Goodbye.
Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
/shrug I just think its sad that someone that came here looking for dialog was attacked
Sure some of you were banned, sure some of you were unjustly banned, that doesn't mean that if someone wants to come here talk about issues you all feel need resolution, you shoot him down about things that he wasn't even a major player in.
I lost a lot of respect for a lot of the people in here.
I'm considering dropping the forum off my daily read list, although it is usually very entertaining, I don't want to be even remotely associated with some of the ppl here :-/
Sure some of you were banned, sure some of you were unjustly banned, that doesn't mean that if someone wants to come here talk about issues you all feel need resolution, you shoot him down about things that he wasn't even a major player in.
I lost a lot of respect for a lot of the people in here.
I'm considering dropping the forum off my daily read list, although it is usually very entertaining, I don't want to be even remotely associated with some of the ppl here :-/
could someone explain what happened? Only the 'outing' was a couple of weeks ago so it seems as if something new must've happened since then for NYB to feel he has to leave.
Let me make it clear. I do not support or condone anyone who calls someone's workplace over their conduct on Wikipedia or elsewhere on the Interwebs.
Did someone call/threaten to call NYB's work?
QUOTE(JohnA @ Tue 29th April 2008, 11:39am)
Let me make it clear. I do not support or condone anyone who calls someone's workplace over their conduct on Wikipedia or elsewhere on the Interwebs.
Did someone call/threaten to call NYB's work?
As an unfortunate but predictable byproduct of activities to out him here on Wikipedia Review, Newyorkbrad has resigned his roles as arbitrator and administrator and left Wikipedia. I wonder if the folks who participated in determining his real world identity will ponder their goal - did causing his resignation from Wikipedia contribute to any of the goals of Wikipedia Review? Or are the goals of Wikipedia Review simply to cause as much trouble as possible for Wikipedia and its editors?
QUOTE(Avruch @ Tue 29th April 2008, 7:45am)
As an unfortunate but predictable byproduct of activities to out him here on Wikipedia Review, Newyorkbrad has resigned his roles as arbitrator and administrator and left Wikipedia. I wonder if the folks who participated in determining his real world identity will ponder their goal - did causing his resignation from Wikipedia contribute to any of the goals of Wikipedia Review? Or are the goals of Wikipedia Review simply to cause as much trouble as possible for Wikipedia and its editors?
I don't know specifically what the goals of WR are. It would seem to me that the goals are to fix all the major problems, and in lieu of that shut it down. Ira's resignation is part of a process that should lead to it shutting down. Therefore, goal achieved. One must win little battles to get where one is going.
QUOTE(ColScott @ Tue 29th April 2008, 7:49am)
I don't know specifically what the goals of WR are.
QUOTE(ColScott @ Tue 29th April 2008, 3:49pm)
Ira's resignation is part of a process that should lead to it shutting down.
He'll just be replaced by someone far more obnoxious.
Per Brad's request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newyorkbrad
"I request that no explicit reference be made here or elsewhere to the incidents prompting my departure"
and per Brandt's terms of vanishing (I can't find them, but basically, your friends aren't allowed to make a big deal of your leaving), could this thread be tarpited?
"I request that no explicit reference be made here or elsewhere to the incidents prompting my departure"
and per Brandt's terms of vanishing (I can't find them, but basically, your friends aren't allowed to make a big deal of your leaving), could this thread be tarpited?
Oh Good, The Mythogenesis Begins …
Jon
Jon
Erm, did you look at whose in line to replace him, not saying their bad, but, um, I don't think any of them are more qualified than him.
7 Rebecca
8 Raul654
9 Manning Bartlett
10 Giano II
11 David Fuchs
12 Shell Kinney
13 MastCell
14 JoshuaZ
15 Swatjester
16 Will Beback
17 Moreschi
7 Rebecca
8 Raul654
9 Manning Bartlett
10 Giano II
11 David Fuchs
12 Shell Kinney
13 MastCell
14 JoshuaZ
15 Swatjester
16 Will Beback
17 Moreschi
I'm just asking because you mentioned that you don't condone it- that implies someone suggested it here.
The responses here rather confirm what I suspected. They are ethical arguments along the lines of "why should we care about NYB when wikipedia does worse?" or "what do people expect when they edit wikipedia?" or "let's cry/not cry for brad".
But I wasn't asking an ethical question. I didn't ask whether it was right/wrong fair/unfair to out brad, and then to use a website to cast aspersions at his professional reputation. What I asked what "how does this help?" "how does this advance the cause of those working to stop the Wikipedia damage to real people?"
I am questioning the boasted commitment of Brandt and Murphy to be crusaders for righteousness. I questioning whether they are in this to so solve the problem (either by getting wikipedia to reform or to die) or whether they are simply in this to wage warfare for its own sake.
What's the strategy, and precisely how does it make things better? How does driving away a user who was alive to the BLP problem help to solve the BLP problem? Is this rational or simply emotive rage?
What is the endgame, and how to the chief protagonists actually think their strategy will work. Cos at the moment I see rage, indignation, spite, and perhaps justified revenge on wikipedia's participants, but I hoped for more strategic thought. Most people who replied to post totally misunderstood what I was saying. This isn't "poor Brad, why did you do that?" this is simply "are you using your undoubted intellects to win, or just to wound". Because the wounds simply strengthen the irresponsible elements in wikipedia.
But I wasn't asking an ethical question. I didn't ask whether it was right/wrong fair/unfair to out brad, and then to use a website to cast aspersions at his professional reputation. What I asked what "how does this help?" "how does this advance the cause of those working to stop the Wikipedia damage to real people?"
I am questioning the boasted commitment of Brandt and Murphy to be crusaders for righteousness. I questioning whether they are in this to so solve the problem (either by getting wikipedia to reform or to die) or whether they are simply in this to wage warfare for its own sake.
What's the strategy, and precisely how does it make things better? How does driving away a user who was alive to the BLP problem help to solve the BLP problem? Is this rational or simply emotive rage?
What is the endgame, and how to the chief protagonists actually think their strategy will work. Cos at the moment I see rage, indignation, spite, and perhaps justified revenge on wikipedia's participants, but I hoped for more strategic thought. Most people who replied to post totally misunderstood what I was saying. This isn't "poor Brad, why did you do that?" this is simply "are you using your undoubted intellects to win, or just to wound". Because the wounds simply strengthen the irresponsible elements in wikipedia.
QUOTE(MBisanz @ Tue 29th April 2008, 11:15am)
Erm, did you look at whose in line to replace him, not saying their bad, but, um, I don't think any of them are more qualified than him.
7 Rebecca
8 Raul654
9 Manning Bartlett
10 Giano II
11 David Fuchs
12 Shell Kinney
13 MastCell
14 JoshuaZ
15 Swatjester
16 Will Beback
17 Moreschi
I'm glad I withdrew my arbcom bid. Definitely don't want to do that anymore.. I'd be on that list had I let it finish probably, heh.
QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Tue 29th April 2008, 2:39pm)
could someone explain what happened? Only the 'outing' was a couple of weeks ago so it seems as if something new must've happened since then for NYB to feel he has to leave.
QUOTE(JohnA @ Tue 29th April 2008, 11:39am)
Let me make it clear. I do not support or condone anyone who calls someone's workplace over their conduct on Wikipedia or elsewhere on the Interwebs.
Did someone call/threaten to call NYB's work?
Don Murphy started a thread on his bulletin board attempting to get a high google ranking for certain allegations. That was apparently the last straw. The link is earlier in this thread somewhere.
Here
ahh Google rankings. I managed to, thanks to the fans, get the thread about Joshua Zelinksy's Body Odor into his top 3 hits. The one on my board about Jimmy Wales the porn king is rather high, though not top ten. If we are interested in Brad and his firm getting recognized for cultish behavior, how about this one?
http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread....241#post1158241
Then Brad can sue me for definition of character, three counts of mopery and exercising free speech. Like when his cult allows children to edit my "biography" and accuse me of shit I never did.
I know I know. He is an innocent man. Tell it to Billy Joel.
All right, you can stop now. I honestly don't understand why I of all people have been chosen to be targeted for this week's campaigns, but it's become pretty obvious that those of you who want me to no longer edit Wikipedia, are going to get what you want. I'll post a message on my Wikipedia userpage in the morning when there are fewer tears in my eyes, and that will be the end of it.
Goodbye.
Newyorkbrad
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 29th April 2008, 3:02am)
QUOTE(ColScott @ Tue 29th April 2008, 1:15am)
ahh Google rankings. I managed to, thanks to the fans, get the thread about Joshua Zelinksy's Body Odor into his top 3 hits. The one on my board about Jimmy Wales the porn king is rather high, though not top ten. If we are interested in Brad and his firm getting recognized for cultish behavior, how about this one?
http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread....241#post1158241
Then Brad can sue me for definition of character, three counts of mopery and exercising free speech. Like when his cult allows children to edit my "biography" and accuse me of shit I never did.
I know I know. He is an innocent man. Tell it to Billy Joel.
All right, you can stop now. I honestly don't understand why I of all people have been chosen to be targeted for this week's campaigns, but it's become pretty obvious that those of you who want me to no longer edit Wikipedia, are going to get what you want. I'll post a message on my Wikipedia userpage in the morning when there are fewer tears in my eyes, and that will be the end of it.
Goodbye.
Newyorkbrad
Rightly or wrongly, this was always going to happen and it will continue to happen until Jimbo's Defamation Machine removes BLPs.
Wikipedians have only themselves to blame. When self-publicising no marks like Elonka bend the rules to breaking point in order to shoehorn generations of their family and themselves into articles, the bar of notability is lowered to the level of the likes of Daniel Brandt.
And then the likes of Daniel Brandt are clearly going to take matters into their own hands.
NewYorkBrad may be "respected" on Wiki, but he isn't the first casualty and will certainly not be the last.
As for his replacement on Arbcom...a twisted part of me wants Zelinsky.
Wikipedians have only themselves to blame. When self-publicising no marks like Elonka bend the rules to breaking point in order to shoehorn generations of their family and themselves into articles, the bar of notability is lowered to the level of the likes of Daniel Brandt.
And then the likes of Daniel Brandt are clearly going to take matters into their own hands.
NewYorkBrad may be "respected" on Wiki, but he isn't the first casualty and will certainly not be the last.
As for his replacement on Arbcom...a twisted part of me wants Zelinsky.
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 29th April 2008, 11:21am)
I hoped for more strategic thought.
I've been hoping for (and working for) for strategic thought for decades now. (Alas, with little to show for it.)
Ambi will be a decent arbiter.
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 29th April 2008, 8:21am)
What is the endgame, and how to the chief protagonists actually think their strategy will work.
At this point, I think for some of the folks here the plan is to strategically target the remaining good people at Wikipedia as they're uncovered, and driven off, leaving just the whackos, idiots, and retards behind. I'm in the "Fix Wikipedia" crowd, and always have been.
I think Daniel, Don, and Jon are firmly in the burn it to the ground crowd. I don't see any plan above and beyond that. Has Daniel even said he would ignore Wikipedia if they were to do something like remove BLPs?
I wonder how much of it is just people unhappy about an aspect of a medium, the Internet, that means things can be said about them that they have zero control over.
QUOTE(MBisanz @ Tue 29th April 2008, 11:05am)
Per Brad's request at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newyorkbrad
"I request that no explicit reference be made here or elsewhere to the incidents prompting my departure"
and per Brandt's terms of vanishing (I can't find them, but basically, your friends aren't allowed to make a big deal of your leaving), could this thread be tarpited?
If someone will make a Wikipedia Template out of it, we can start posting it all over Wikipedia User And Talk Pages.
QUOTE
I request that no explicit reference be made here or elsewhere to the incidents prompting my departure.
Signed, ~~~~
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 29th April 2008, 2:20am)
And you people undermine that same effort. You reveal yourself as nothing but the vindictive "attack site" that wikipediots like to see you as.
You're getting your cause and effect flipped, Doc. Progress isn't being shot in the foot because of Brant's actions, It's proceeding _only because of_ of actions like Brant's.
Let's flip the tables. What about Your people, Doc. Where were you when Brandt's name was being dragged through the mud and libeled and slandered? His response - and let's admit it, it's a civilized and restrained response - is to simply name a few of the wheels at Wikipedia, that's all. And here you sit squealing like a stuck pig, bemoaning the horror and evil.
Just exactly how stupid are you?
QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 29th April 2008, 11:50am)
At this point, I think for some of the folks here the plan is to strategically target the remaining good people at Wikipedia as they're uncovered, and driven off, leaving just the whackos, idiots, and retards behind. I'm in the "Fix Wikipedia" crowd, and always have been.
I think Daniel, Don, and Jon are firmly in the burn it to the ground crowd. I don't see any plan above and beyond that.
I think Daniel, Don, and Jon are firmly in the burn it to the ground crowd. I don't see any plan above and beyond that.
The strategy of the Burn It Down faction appears to be to drive off of WP and WR anyone who is in a position to fix the problems on WP, and to drive off of WR anyone here who advocates fixing it.
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 29th April 2008, 4:21pm)
But I wasn't asking an ethical question. I didn't ask whether it was right/wrong fair/unfair to out brad, and then to use a website to cast aspersions at his professional reputation. What I asked what "how does this help?" "how does this advance the cause of those working to stop the Wikipedia damage to real people?"
That's exactly what I meant in a thread I made a few days ago. Actions like this are detrimental to attempts to improve WP, and detrimental to the reputation of WR. Just by allowing them to stay up , regardless of whether most WR members agree with them, will intimidate some members of WP away from posting here, and lurkers from posting. And make WR look more loopy.
It also could be stopping wikipedians from disagreeing with things here due to worry that they will be the next target, as new targets seem to be chosen on a whim and because they contribute here.
QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 29th April 2008, 11:50am)
At this point, I think for some of the folks here the plan is to strategically target the remaining good people at Wikipedia as they're uncovered, and driven off, leaving just the whackos, idiots, and retards behind.
Precisely- why frighten off people who are more receptive than most wikipedians, leaving the mindless lackeys to run the place to an even greater extent?
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 29th April 2008, 8:58am)
QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 29th April 2008, 11:50am)
At this point, I think for some of the folks here the plan is to strategically target the remaining good people at Wikipedia as they're uncovered, and driven off, leaving just the whackos, idiots, and retards behind. I'm in the "Fix Wikipedia" crowd, and always have been.
I think Daniel, Don, and Jon are firmly in the burn it to the ground crowd. I don't see any plan above and beyond that.
I think Daniel, Don, and Jon are firmly in the burn it to the ground crowd. I don't see any plan above and beyond that.
The strategy of the Burn It Down faction appears to be to drive off of WP and WR anyone who is in a position to fix the problems on WP, and to drive off of WR anyone here who advocates fixing it.
Going after Brad, the one universally accepted Nice Guy on Wikipedia, one of the best moderates, and one of the best chances for change just because he was a "viable target" was an act of douchebaggery by Daniel Brandt on the level of Robert Novak outing Valerie Plame.
To paraphrase Jon Stewart, Daniel Brandt is the new Douchebag of Liberty.
QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Tue 29th April 2008, 3:58pm)
You're getting your cause and effect flipped, Doc. Progress isn't being shot in the foot because of Brant's actions, It's proceeding _only because of_ of actions like Brant's.
Beg pardon? Where is any progress at all being made on BLPs? I've not been active on Wikipedia in a while, but last time I checked in it was business as usual: still nobody taking responsibility for policing the content. The minority of people who have advocated more responsibility for content are all being run off the site one by one (or voluntarily walking away from the madness). Brandt et. al. have a fairly poor strategy if the idea is removal of their respective articles. They are simply leaving the most rabid/vindictive of inclusionists to run the asylum.
Of course I don't expect that is the idea at all. Rootology and Moulton are probably quite a bit closer to the truth.
QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 29th April 2008, 12:11pm)
To paraphrase Jon Stewart, Daniel Brandt is the new Douchebag of Liberty.
Couldn't we just refer to him as the Anankast of San Antonio?
After all, part of our educational mission is to stretch the reader's vocabulary.
QUOTE(Adam Smithee @ Tue 29th April 2008, 9:14am)
Beg pardon? Where is any progress at all being made on BLPs?
Aren't they about to make the default AFD on BLPs a delete? Thats a huge change and a start.
QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 29th April 2008, 4:18pm)
Aren't they about to make the default AFD on BLPs a delete? Thats a huge change and a start.
Is that actually close to passing/sticking? Last I checked it appeared to be somewhat contentious and my experience with Wikipedia was that contentious !Rules died unless the Foundation or Der Kabal crammed them through.
If that does stick it would be an enormous first step towards fixing one of the big problems there.
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 29th April 2008, 11:52am)
QUOTE(MBisanz @ Tue 29th April 2008, 11:05am)
Per Brad's request at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newyorkbrad
"I request that no explicit reference be made here or elsewhere to the incidents prompting my departure"
and per Brandt's terms of vanishing (I can't find them, but basically, your friends aren't allowed to make a big deal of your leaving), could this thread be tarpited?
"I request that no explicit reference be made here or elsewhere to the incidents prompting my departure"
and per Brandt's terms of vanishing (I can't find them, but basically, your friends aren't allowed to make a big deal of your leaving), could this thread be tarpited?
If someone will make a Wikipedia Template out of it, we can start posting it all over Wikipedia User And Talk Pages.
QUOTE
I request that no explicit reference be made here or elsewhere to the incidents prompting my departure.
Signed, ~~~~
Signed, ~~~~
It's a fair point, Jon, and I applaud you for stating it so succinctly.
Slim and her people are pushing it, so it's probably good to go.
If she can push that through, she's 50% redeemed in my book.
If she can push that through, she's 50% redeemed in my book.
QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 29th April 2008, 5:18pm)
Aren't they about to make the default AFD on BLPs a delete? Thats a huge change and a start.
Haven't followed the debate, but wait for the "If this makes it easier to delete Daniel Brandt info then I'm agin it." on the back of this.
QUOTE(Jacina @ Tue 29th April 2008, 3:30pm)
someone that came here looking for dialog
That appears to be a myth.
NYB's first post was a long-winded attempt to deflate a thread started by Brandt. While he made a gesture of inviting "suggestions on how currently pending BLP issues should best be addressed", he did not notably engage in the subsequent discussion for the 3 weeks between that post and Brandt locating his real name.
Less dialog than smokebombing.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.