http://www.contextflexed.com/storywikipediaexposed.html[/url]

Interesting but FT2 is certainly not Ian Limbach. Limbach is based in Europe, FT2 is not. FT2 is full-time NLP trainer and not journalist.

Interesting but FT2 is certainly not Ian Limbach. Limbach is based in Europe, FT2 is not. FT2 is full-time NLP trainer and not journalist.

^demon / Danny = Danny Wool (FL) dannyisme@gmail.com http://veropedia.com St.Petersburg, Florida, USA

I have been to many Wikipedia review sites now, and am less than enthused with the endless ball-lessness and lukewarm debate over the ethics over ending Wikipedia Administrative Anonymity. Out of respect for the rules of Wikipedia Review, I am not posting the names here, but I will give you the link to my first dedicated Information Bomb against Wikipedia. It is now my official mission to ruin Anonymity on Wikipedia. If anyone has anything useful to contribute, consider yourselves invited to contact me. I am currently only impressed by the work of Daniel Brandt and Judd Bagley, and observe that the various forums "critical" of Wikipedia are excessively staffed by Wikipedia Admins, as evidenced by their blistering wails (Wales?) whenever solid information comes out.

To whatever end, I now offer you the new WIKIPEDIA USER DATABASE at Haters Magazine

http://www.contextflexed.com/storywikipediaexposed.html

I'm not actually a vandal proof admin by the way (this is Majorly), you may like to fix that.

Sometimes - and this actually a serious point, with regard to some peoples possible desire to be (sort of) recognised - I wish I were a little more furtive about my identity, just so I could be put up on these lists as a "person of mystery". However, I can't be arsed.

Hey, Flipside, if Wikipedia "relative estrangement from the facts" bothers you - don't ever subscribe to one of those dating sites. You might explode.

Sometimes - and this actually a serious point, with regard to some peoples possible desire to be (sort of) recognised - I wish I were a little more furtive about my identity, just so I could be put up on these lists as a "person of mystery". However, I can't be arsed.

Hey, Flipside, if Wikipedia "relative estrangement from the facts" bothers you - don't ever subscribe to one of those dating sites. You might explode.

I have been to many Wikipedia review sites now, and am less than enthused with the endless ball-lessness and lukewarm debate over the ethics over ending Wikipedia Administrative Anonymity. Out of respect for the rules of Wikipedia Review, I am not posting the names here, but I will give you the link to my first dedicated Information Bomb against Wikipedia. It is now my official mission to ruin Anonymity on Wikipedia. If anyone has anything useful to contribute, consider yourselves invited to contact me. I am currently only impressed by the work of Daniel Brandt and Judd Bagley, and observe that the various forums "critical" of Wikipedia are excessively staffed by Wikipedia Admins, as evidenced by their blistering wails (Wales?) whenever solid information comes out.

To whatever end, I now offer you the new WIKIPEDIA USER DATABASE at Haters Magazine

http://www.contextflexed.com/storywikipediaexposed.html

I never "fake retired" as I'd remained editing (and quite enjoying it) when I handed up my sysop and c/u bits. I'd intended to stay gone but got Hiveminded anyways

You fake retired as a response to being put on Hivemind - rather than coming back after being "Hiveminded anyways", as the above suggests.

You fake retired as a response to being put on Hivemind - rather than coming back after being "Hiveminded anyways", as the above suggests.

You implied you were leaving wikipedia (I think you said 'come on guys, let me go!' or something) in response to brandt's threat to put you up there. Not that I blame you necessarily

Then you said on here you were only back/stiill there for short-term, specific tasks.

I hope you don't leave anyway.

And you and Foz- you can't deny you seem to have a close friendship here. It's not like saying the 'alison and brandt cabal' or something

Tsk. You didn't spell my name right.

Thanks! The "back for the specific task" concerned one final c/u job (relating to Amorrow. Surprise!) and this caused the confusion. It was only ever meant to be back on for minutes but ended up being on overnight because of time differences and stuff (right, Lar?).

If you're going to out users, make it classy, like Brandt. Make a table, at least.

That was horrible.

If you're going to out users, make it classy, like Brandt. Make a table, at least.

I believe things like this and hivemind should be a database of the names, universities, graduation dates, field(s), and profession of all editors who have ever claimed a degree and. If the editor's claimed credentials are false, with evidence that the degrees are fake, it should be listed as so. The real name of the editor should still remain, though, if the degree is fake, to provide accountability. In the case of of an editor who claims experience, but not necessarily a degree, and has edited in their supposed field, the information should be: real given name and surname, field of expertise, a link to the editor's report, and profession. At least one e-mail address, if known, should be provided for contact. In the event the e-mail address is used for harassment, the address should be taken down. Processes should be the same if the expertise is fake.

My definition of an expert is someone who has experience (i.e., not book knowledge, and not intuition) in a field, and has done a report on their experience. The two words seem to have the same root, exper-. For example, I would define an expert in Indian anthropology as someone who has actually went to India, extensively study and document a culture there (their customs, life, and cultural highlights), optionally live with the people, and then organize their journal/documentation and write a report about it, then publish it.

To whatever end, I now offer you the new WIKIPEDIA USER DATABASE at Haters Magazine

Why on earth are you "outing" ALM scientist? He's not an administrator, isn't part of any cabal, and has done you no wrong.

And he's also outing Alison for no reason.

Since the most abusive admins are closest to the top of the Wikipedia hierarchy and since they nominate and approve the other admins as well as hide amongst them claiming "legitimate use of sockpuppets", I will out them all at my convenience until the anonymity function of Wikipedia Administration becomes useless, and the editors have to resort to honesty and straightforwardness. I further hold that my reaction is the natural and justifiable reaction that any reasonable person with surplus time, resources, skill, and pride would make after being kicked off an allegedly free 501 c) Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game by a team of medallion-wearing hentai and anal fisting experts for the crime of having a known identity and a sense of self-esteem and personal authority without having been duly appointed to Admin status or given any "Barnstars" for being obseqious and minuscule.

Nota Bene: Wikipedia had its chance. Wikipedia formally decided in March 2007 that Real Life Editorial and Administrative accountability was *not* going to be permitted. Regarding persons other than themselves, they believe they have a right to nose about in everyone else's business, accusing them of "internet crimes" such as Conflict of Interest, Spam, and Stalking when their identities are revealed. This includes half of the persons allegedly "criticizing" and "reforming" Wikipedia. The truth is that a central cabal of Wikipedia admins, including Risker, AudeVivere, David Gerard, Josh Gordon, Michael Noda, and Jayjg, have such enormously fat heads that they regularly discuss expanding the prosecutorial and probationary police powers of Wikipedia into real communities to have Wikipedians who disagree with Admins ---arrested! That desired capacity alone merits a full-scale attack on Wikipedian Anonymity. That Wikipedia is considered an information authority and uses coding hooks and crooks to place first in Google is another reason. Or perhaps you prefer to be ruled unworthy of existence by the self-proclaimed search engine police.

It's a little blustery, of course, but it's hard to argue with the facts.

It's a complete non sequitur to criticize a ruling cabal of administrators, and then print the name of someone like ALM scientist, who isn't even a well-connected user, much less an administrator or a checkuser, and has zero interest in Wikipedia politics.

The government sucks, so I'll attack a bunch of random people.

Why on earth are you "outing" ALM scientist? He's not an administrator, isn't part of any cabal, and has done you no wrong.

To whatever end, I now offer you the new WIKIPEDIA USER DATABASE at Haters Magazine
http://www.contextflexed.com/storywikipediaexposed.html

I believe things like this and hivemind should be a database of the names, universities, graduation dates, field(s), and profession of all editors who have ever claimed a degree and. If the editor's claimed credentials are false, with evidence that the degrees are fake, it should be listed as so. The real name of the editor should still remain, though, if the degree is fake, to provide accountability. In the case of of an editor who claims experience, but not necessarily a degree, and has edited in their supposed field, the information should be: real given name and surname, field of expertise, a link to the editor's report, and profession. At least one e-mail address, if known, should be provided for contact. In the event the e-mail address is used for harassment, the address should be taken down. Processes should be the same if the expertise is fake.

My definition of an expert is someone who has experience (i.e., not book knowledge, and not intuition) in a field, and has done a report on their experience. The two words seem to have the same root, exper-. For example, I would define an expert in Indian anthropology as someone who has actually went to India, extensively study and document a culture there (their customs, life, and cultural highlights), optionally live with the people, and then organize their journal/documentation and write a report about it, then publish it.

Why on earth are you "outing" ALM scientist? He's not an administrator, isn't part of any cabal, and has done you no wrong.

Oh wow, he couldn't even get the right username attached to my email.

If this is an attempt to inject false positives...

Yay I see my name.

(Even if he did leave out the "u" in "obsequious"...

I think Mr. FLIPSIDE may be missing is the fact that many of these people actually want to be identified. Everybody loves attention, and he's only playing into their hands at the expense of people...

Does it need to be in a peer reviewed (academic) journal? Or would something in a widely circulated popular magazine (say National Geo) do? Or a narrowly circulated one? Or self published? Somewhere in there (not exactly sure where) it goes from solid to slippery...

(Even if he did leave out the "u" in "obsequious"...
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

It needs to be something that is a reliable source.

I think that not everyone is on the same wavelength about this. ALM scientist has done me no wrong. Neither have I done him wrong.

There are those that have pointed out that the definition of RS is itself imperfect.

Interesting but FT2 is certainly not Ian Limbach. Limbach is based in Europe, FT2 is not. FT2 is full-time NLP trainer and not journalist.

I don't think we should care that the Wikipedian in question is a Wobbly and in my opinion, it is not useful information. I think FLIPSIDE knows what I'm talking about.

Come on, dude. You've made it very clear that you mean to get back at Wikipedia, and this list is meant to be part of that. I accept that this tactic is justified in some instances and necessary in others, but to pretend that you're not meaning any harm here is completely insincere.

Really, you don't think you're doing people harm by posting their contact information?

I mean to bring the heat to Wikipedia as a whole, specifically the top of Wikipedia, give it a fever, what have you, until it burns out the IrishGuy infection, but not by harming individual users. I don't see this as using a scattergun against innocent bystanders. I see this as taking a few steps to change the entire Wikipedia playing board through medium sized, holistic, and not overreaching tactics.

It doesn't really matter what you intended by doing this. The fact is, you are invading people's privacy, when many of them have done nothing but be associated with Wikipedia.

It doesn't really matter what you intended by doing this. The fact is, you are invading people's privacy, when many of them have done nothing but be associated with Wikipedia.

That is a nonsequitor. People who wish to remain private do not pose as editors of an encyclopedia. Every encyclopedia I have ever purchased has listed the names and credentials of the contributors. If we may move off the ethics issue back to the existential issue: Either Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, or it is a Role Playing Game.

"Why are Wikipedia editors special creatures that are entitled to protections for their privacy that does not exist for the article subjects in Wikipedia?"

That question in italics is the thing no one can ever answer.

Actually no, let's stay with the ethics issue for a minute. Why is Vox Humana's name up there? Why is Risker's, for that matter? For that matter, why am *I* up there? All you did was copy Daniel Brandt's info, which he's already taken down. Right now it's starting to look like you just want to get at WMF by hurting as many contributors as possible, regardless of whether they're admins, BLP violators, whatever. Fair game in your "battle" against WP.

I look through the list and find that it's riddled with inaccuracies, downright disinformation ( ) and editors who have retired long ago. Right now, what you've done, IMO, is created a big long tl;dr list of WP editors simply because you wanna.

You are free to throw tantrums and make demands. My experience is that that only works if one is an Admin. It certainly doesn't work for a regular user. You are also invited to offer corrections to the onymous information pile. Being a West Coaster at the "pretty color" computer manufacturer, I understand your desire to remain on the ethical question. I am a PC/IBM person, and as you know, we are cold calculating utilitarians.