I've read parts of this before, but the following should be read in the entire, to get the full effect. Basically a lot of it, is Alison and Lar being busted in the chops for openly posting on WR:

This link (starting with the do not modify "Break: checkuser")

zOMG, what drama.

Some of this is helpful, so the world can see how nutty the power-structure is on WP, and how much of a guilt-by-association game it is. As in: "You lie down with the dogs over there on WR, so you doubtless bring fleas here to WP! It's so bad that even the WP Kool Aiders are embarrassed by it.

On the other hand, is it worth it for you WP wonks? I personally avoid endless trouble on WP by posting here under a different name. I don't think anyone will consider any admin there on WP who posts here on WR anonymously (as many do), a coward for doing so. It's just saving yourself endless trouble from dipshits. And it's really your opinions that count here, anyway. You're only going to lose marginally by not being able to post with the "authority" of being in power at WP, and there are just a few narrow topics you'd have to stay away from. But then, that's true for most of us, here. On the internet, you never know which dogs are posting as cats, and vice versa.

Over here, you can mostly be yourself, as you've found out. But you can be yourself under some name that SlimVirgin & friends can't connect you with, also. Deprive her of a weapon. Just go away, and come back as somebody else. Or come back as somebody else before you go "away" as your WP-self-- I"ll bet the mods here would let you, if you asked. Nobody's going to checkuser you here and punish you-- really. So it's a slam-dunk unless you really believe that stuff about NYB being IP'ed for ED (which, if it were true, ED would have posted, IP and all).

I'd have PM'd you all this, but I want to see what the WR community has to say. For myself, I think that if you're taking the kind of abuse above on behalf of THIS place, then don't. It's only worth it if you're proving something to yourselves. And what that might be, I don't know.

But I have to say, watching this stuff is a little like watching that first ROCKY movie with Stalone. Ouch.

Milton

There's a reason this post still stands, and will probably always stand.

"User:RegenerateThis"? What happened to "Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The"? I think he's just trying to confuse us, purely for the amusement value.

Then again, maybe he saw this and decided it was time to move on, and try something a bit less "twee."

This was somewhat ironic:


Beam should register an account here himself, surely? That's one of our most commonly-held criticisms. Heck, he could be any one of us.

And of course, after that he proceeded to flip several more kittens...

Indeed, it is amazing how we get along here with so few people being banniated for "incivility."

Of course, there's a trick: tarpitting. This removes drawma-fights from public view, so that either party can feel free to back down without having to have the last word. On WP they haven't yet discovered the tarpit, so nobody can back down until the celebrity death-match is over.

As for folks like Anticipation-of-Warm-Chopped-Liver, Oh, they don't last long on WR without outing themselves. That remains true. But, so what? I was making the suggestion for people of integrity that I've come to respect. It doesn't apply to drawma-queens looking for ever-new worlds to act-out in.

Having your ventolation on WP feels good, but does it last, and is it worth it? And hast thou slain the jabberwock, my Beamish boy? Probably not. I would suggest getting out of Wonderland before you meet the Red Queen.

Well, it just seems like all these people who are WR's "favorite targets," such as JzG, MONGO, Slimmy, and Tony Sidaway himself, are just-plain frustrated. They've been at it for well over two years now, arguing, scheming, insulting, and banning people who criticize them, but Wikipedia Review is still there, pointing out the problems with their behavior, tactics, attitudes, and so on.

So can we really blame them for the occasional boil-over? I mean, I feel the same way - I've been here since June 2006, almost every day, trying to point out all sorts of things that are wrong with Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is still there. It just won't go away, no matter how hard I try to make it so! Dammit, it's just not fair!

I mean, it's not inconceivable that someday, in the not-excessively-distant future, the moderators here might decide to take a more pro-active stance against people making nasty "personal attacks" against Wikipedia users, maybe even Wikipedia admins. ( I know, perish the thought...) I actually think we're progressing in that direction, though very slowly. But y'know, it's really hard, because the worst WP'ers do bring it upon themselves more than they would ever care to admit. So we end up hearing these horror stories about them, over and over and over again, because they do happen - over and over and over again. In fact, sometimes I myself feel like Michael Corleone in that famous bit from Godfather III - "Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in."

Besides, as I've pointed out many times, any website that would allow David "Ultimate Stalker-Troll" Shanker-sores to continue unbanned and unsanctioned for even an instant is in absolutely no position to criticize anyone else for, well, just about anything. Privacy violations in particular.

It's perfectly obvious that some posters here are admins, maybe even more senior. The fact that they do not care to reveal their WP names speaks volumes about WP.

I'm ashamed to admit that this sentiment is even found sometimes on WQ.

http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=...48&oldid=668695

If they spent the same amount of time pissing and moaning about who's worse off because of a website on actually improving the encyclopedia, it might actually be worth something.

It seems to me that this sooper-sekrit arbcom case might actually do something about this...one way or the other.

Don't these people ever ask themselves why NewYorkBrad posts over here? I mean, you don't find anybody here nor there who is as clearly a straight-shooter and he keeps posting here.

It might do something, but who knows.



No time to think critically when your livelihood is being attacked.

I stand by what I've said before, that for some people, Wikipedia is everything. It's big. It's well known. It's "important!" And now that they control a chunk of it, the terror of being just another fish in the sea, and not a shark, is overwhelming. So, they'll do anything to keep their little station of power on this big, famous website. And at this point, any intentions they had of actually "helping" the project is lost among the need to keep their position.

And because these people will impose their will when they can, it makes no sense to even bother editing at all.

...and those people clearly believe that everyone else is motivated in the same way - Shankbone sees Wikipedia as important and sees those who would decry it as simply being jealous of him and others who think they have climbed the greasy pole of Wiki fame, hence his incomprehension of Somey. Surely he must be seeking his fame and fortune here, like everyone else on WR?

To be fair, make your name on Wikipedia - on the net in general - and it can launch you into other things. I've had lucrative work based purely on my net presence, but that was because I was doing professional things. I would think that Shankbone had a possibility of gaining that payback, aside from the seedy side to his output - if you were looking for a freelance photographer, would you be happy with his fixations? I think he sees "no holds barred" as some bonus, whereas most professional organisations would see this unprofessional incontinence as a lack of judgement and steer well clear.

Durova clearly sees Wikipedia as some means to a fulfilled life - whether that is on the expectation of some financial gain or simply the kudos of being a name on a big name site. Slim - who knows what her real motivations are? Guy seems to be simply indulging a power trip as he seems to get little satisfaction from his presence.

Yet there are others, like Tim Vickers, who seem to have it sorted: a chance to produce a body of quality work in the public domain with the knowledge that it is genuinely within the public's grasp. As an academic, I think he could claim some stature for his contribution and the way he has presented himself.

Don't be. Witness the travesty on Commons re SB Johnny requesting CU access. People registering accounts just to 'oppose' someone? These people have no shame, and accordingly, I'd be careful too (though my username here matches my WP* username).

CU votes are farces. We've had four on WQ. While not a single oppose vote was cast in any of them, we've had to scrape hard to get 25 people to vote. We did indeed get someone rgistering just to vote and it was accepted. On the last vote, Cary Bass himself came along to cast the 25th.

Yeah, there is no way I'd "vote" to give someone the right to check my IP address. To do that, you'd have to care more about the presumed "security" of the site than your own privacy. I don't see what the incentive for that would be.

One of the best services that WR provides is to uncover and publicize attempts to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool for personal causes, whether it be animal rights, Israeli history, Irish history, discrediting the Intelligent Design idea, etc. Unsurprisingly, some of the editors (some of whom are admins and hold/held positions of authority in Wikipedia) are none too happy to have their agendas exposed to public scrutiny and thereby thwarted or made more difficult to accomplish.

Unfortunately, some of these people decide to attack the messenger (this forum) and the people who participate in it, believing, falsely, that this will afford them some measure of advantage in their struggle to continue their behaviors which are clearly problematic and, frankly, unacceptable. Some of us are so confident in what we believe to be true and right that we're willing to face mendacious recrimination in Wikipedia by posting here openly. I'm not disparaging those that choose to post here anonymously, however, because I understand that there are compelling reasons to do so.

Well, you are a braver man than I will ever be. Still, and I admit I've subscribed a bit to this also, I wouldn't ideologize one site over another. Effectively, both WR and WP are the same phenomenon, I think. Although WP has the greater reach, WR's "investigations" can have a similar psychological impact on a person as a negative bio on-wiki. The particular forum for this doesn't really matter, it's the extent to which someone becomes an inadvertent "celebrity" on-line, for anything or nothing in particular, or even for "real" reasons, that can become problematic for any individual.

Still, if SV didn't want the attention, she would have backed off long ago. Her presence over there keeps this site in business. Essjay, by contrast, competely vanished.

Ironically, it sems that if you want to be a moderator here you have to be anonymous. If some people here know that you are a WP editor, they attack you for having an alleged CoI.

Terrible!

Still, you have to look at it in terms of cause-and-effect. We choose moderators mostly on the basis of rationality and level-headedness (and coincidentally remove them on the same basis), but when you're using your Wikipedia account name as your WR member name, that's extremely difficult - because pro-Wikipedia people (or else just people from WP who don't like you) will follow you here and extend whatever the dispute you're having to this site. So, you end up arguing with those people all the time, which makes you look less level-headed. It's like... a vicious circle!

It didn't used to be that way, of course - in the early days, the site chose moderators pretty much on the basis of personal appearance, or whoever could get the most laughs. Hence, myself. Unfortunately, we had to abandon that practice in order to get one of those big foundation grants. The money comes in handy (I just bought a new iPod the other day), but ultimately it's not as satisfying as, say, multiple orgasms.

Wikipedia is becoming way too political. I'd rather the politics didn't exist, but I guess that is what happens when people get involved in anything.

Not to mention anti-WP people.

Hi Somey

I for one would like WP to continue and fart on into the next century. Its a great swamp to flag as a mess of untraversible social inadiquacy and incompetence. Its an exemplar of stupidity promotion. The Internet has to have shitty places like that. Just a little flag here and there from WR can highlight a whole lotta bullshit.

I do have a fairly strong belief that WP will sink in the google search rankings. Wikis and the like are just at the beginning of their evolution. If its not Knol, it will be another advance that comes along to provide something more reasonable for people wanting to express themselves, and others who want to find something reliable.

And the searching public will just get more savvy. Those little nippers can already run rings around me in techy terms.

Doc