PouponOnToast has started a page in his userspace that monitors this forum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PouponOnToast/LWR

Without commenting on whether or not you (Cla68) contribute through a proxy, how does PoopOnToast think he knows that?

I'm not a really technological knowledgeable person, so, what does he mean by "contributing through a proxy"? I thought my real name was well known by my quotes in the Register and the Associated Press.

I think he means that you (Cla) contribute to a wikipedia discussion by proxy, by posting information or comment here that others integrate 'on-wiki' in some way.... at least that's how I read it....

Maybe I should just ask him directly what he means by that.

And what would be wrong with that? Has it perhaps escaped him that Cla68 is not, in fact, banned?

I just asked him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=218523345

This jackass. Just for reference, Poupon is almost certainly Hypocrite, and was a Weiss apologist. He really hates us BADSITES, and tried to get SirFozzie to recall.

Prior threads:
Spreading the Poop On Thick, ....Credibility Toast, Piperdown, Feb 11 (banned user)
Links to namechange, Miltopia's confirming comment below in re Hypocrite.
Reincarnation grudging.

Yep. We think, we notice something, we come to a conclusion. Cla reads it, and passes it onto WP without saying where it came from. It's called "thought-laundering," and it's a wikicrime.

BADSITES. Means bad ideas. Can't have them come from supposedly good editors.

Hey, PouponToast! (Or S.O.S., as was classically said in the military). You know Cla, but my name isn't Milton, on Wikipedia! But sometimes I still have an original thought there. How are you going to find it?

Oh, wait, rats..... I know. It will stand out, won't it.




Okay, my name is "Lar" on Wikipedia.

I call BS. Everyone knows I never have original thoughts.

This is really barking (Barry, for you = meshuganah). He has little tics as to whether threads have permitted contents, aims, discussants. Something for OCD is indicated.

One of my relatives was the principal of a high school and opened a door to a classroom once to find the teacher with head on his desk, fast asleep. The students were all reading their texts. He quietly shut the door. "I knew he didn't do it often, and at least he wasn't causing them any harm," said he.

And likewise, I suppose any time Poup is spending on this kind of twaddle is not time he's screwing somebody over with the tools.

Milton

PS. Cla, that's what you get for having the integrity to post here under your WP name. Should've waited till you passed your RfA.


Well, I said it would stand out. But you're bulletproof. Nevertheless, the contents of this thread are even now being monitored to see if they would be prohibited. Mrreee, Mreee, Mreeee. PRO-HIBITED!

Poupon always struck me as a Crum clone...a proxy meatpuppet to divert scruitiny from SV.

Moulton waves at PouponToast.

I don't think he's referring to you at all - I believe he simply made a mistake in his use of reference tags. You see this quite a lot among people who criticize Wikipedia Review - they don't have proper brains, so they can't really manage the complexity of the tagging.

He's actually referring to this post, and in doing so he's essentially repeating the "outing" attempt made by Shankbone a few weeks ago. This is also typical of this sort of Wikipedian - he's awed by the sheer spectacular-ness of Shankbone's efforts at defamation, "stalking," and revenge, and therefore Shankbone has now become his personal hero. He will now attempt to "be like Dave" in everything he does, and in the process make mincemeat out of any pretense WP may once have had towards any sort of morality or ethics whatsoever.

There's still a chance for him, though - he could give up on this particular bit of "trolling," and actually do what a very tiny minority of Wikipedians, that tiny minority that includes Cla68 (ironically enough), do. He could actually try writing an encyclopedia.

He'll fail, of course, but he could at least try...

What am I encouraging? And since when are off-wiki comments 1/ relevant on wikipedia and 2/ allowed to be collected in user space sub-pages?

Maybe we're a Reliable Source?

Well, if Tony's remarks are evidence about what Tony believes, I'm sure that these posts must be similarly worthy of ArbCom, and there's nothing wrong with keeping an evidence page (unless you're Cla68, perhaps).

"Off-wiki" comments have always been relevant on Wikipedia - what could have given you the impression that this isn't the case? As for being collected on user subpages, well... that's a form of what experimental psychologists sometimes call "ball-thrusting." You have a bunch of mice in a bunch of cages, and sometimes the experimental psychologist will put two or three males into a cage with one female, ostensibly to "see what happens" but actually because all experimental psychologists are cruel, sadistic bastards. Anyway, the male mice, in the absence of any other means of showing superiority, will simply thrust their testicles at each other in the hopes that this will scare the others into submission, while also impressing the female mouse. Sometimes the male mice will attempt to fight each other as well, but mice are actually terrible fighters - the only thing they're really good at is nibbling, which isn't very frightening to other mice.

Anyway, the analogies are fairly obvious, so I'll avoid the direct comparisons.

Meanwhile, the female mouse is concentrating on her ballet.

In the interest of Raul654's fascination with breaching experiments, let's see what PouponOnToast does with this...



And not to let Somey outclass me with his "ball thrusting", permit me to come right back at him with my very own brand of unkenschnupfen.

Raul is a big, fat windbag. And I mean that very literally on all descriptors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mis...uponOnToast/LWR

Up on MFD by Kirill.

Speedied, at the request of PouponOnToast, who would have preferred a more collegial and congenial request to him, first, to delete the page, before invoking the dreadful Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation.

Does anyone have a copy? I didn't get to see it.

Ahh, yes, the toad sniffles. Perhaps my favorite German word... Of course, the very first phrase I learned in German was "Ich haben un schnupfen," or "I have a cold." This is useful if you're on one of those bus tours through the Rhineland, fail to dress warmly enough, start sneezing, and the bus-tour director doesn't have any cold medicine. Some German pharmacies used to keep everything behind the counter, particularly in small towns. Or at least that's what I found out, anyway.

Unfortunately, I didn't learn any more German phrases after that, so that ended up being the only one I ever learned, which is probably just as well. The Rhineland is really just a big shopping mall at this point.

As for the deleted PouponOnToast page, it wasn't very extensive... hardly worth the trouble of copying it, really.

It has been restored and courtesy blanked while the RFAR is ongoing. It can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._SirFozzie%2C_B

I think BobbyB was talking about this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PouponOnToast/LWR
I could be wrong, and if so, I apologise for misconstruing his request.

Ah. My bad.

So I see GRBerry wrote:



This is kind of interesting. The return of Poupon/Hipo/whomever to leap into the ID fight but heavily focusing on Wikipedia Review (and any other current or future similar sites) seems to be to frame it in terms of how IRC was framed in the recent wars, with IRC being labeled a net-negative and things like that. In other words, only discuss Wikipedia matters ON Wikipedia, and subject to Wikipedia's rules. It's an interesting twist of a method of attack on off-site discussion, if so (and only a little transparent). Kudos to Poup if thats what he devised this as, 'cause it's kind of clever. It's a straight reversing of BADSITES.

"They may or may not be bad people, but they're not us. Stay with us."

Or am I misreading this?

Speedied out of pure embarrassment by Poup, I think.

But not before Lar got to opine that WR is not 100% evil.

Somey: Thus, per Lar, our new official WR motto: Don't Be 100% Evil

Wikipedia Review: 99 & 44/100% pure evil?

there is some value to this. as a long time reader of WR, I find the level of analysis in these forums to have sharply decreased since all the WPers showed up. you can't even make fun of them nowadays without a whole gang of their friends showing up to battle. even Brandt seems distinctly unwelcome in these parts these days!

My view of these dueling RfC's, from the marginalized sidelines of the gridiron, is that the RfC's are political footballs being kicked up and down the playing field of an MMPONWMG (Massive Multi-Player Online Narcissistic Wounding and Mugging Game), also known as PaintBall by means of the Spammish Inquisition.

Here is the theme song to the show...

The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down

[Click for Midi Accompaniment]

Barsoom Tork is my name, and I rode on the paintball train,
Til so much rivalry came and tore up the tracks again.
In the fall of skandalon, we were rollin, just trollin for bait.
I took the train to Wiki, that hell, it was a time I remember, oh so well.

The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the bells were ringing,
The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the people were stingin'.
They went
Na,
Na, na, na, na, na,
Blah, blah, buh blah,
Buh blah blah, blah blah

Back with Dave at Epiphany, and one day he said to me,
"Moulton, quick, come see, a-there goes Filll on a spree!"
Now I don't mind choppin' wood, and I don't care if Hrafn's no good.
Just take what ya need and efface the rest,
But they should never have wiped out the very best.

The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the bells were ringing,
The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the people were stingin'.
They went
Na,
Na, na, na, na, na,
Blah, blah, buh blah,
Buh blah blah, blah blah

Like my father before me, I'm a working man,
And like ZayZay before me, I took a rebel stand.
Well, he was just pissed off, proud and brave,
But paintball laid him in his grave,
I swear by the verse below my feet,
You can't raise the Torkel back up when its in defeat.

The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the bells were ringing,
The Night They Drove Old Moulton Down, and all the people were stingin'.
They went
Na,
Na, na, na, na, na,
Blah, blah, buh blah,
Buh blah blah, blah blah

CopyClef 2007 Joan Baez and Barsoom Tork Associates.

There you go. Anything to jounce people out of the fundamentalist groove of binary-thinking in this analog world.

On another thread I need to address (when I have time) the complaint that I dare edit EVEN A LITTLE on WP, when it's PURE 100% EVIL, and everyone knows it!

Well, the answer is that the world is more complicated than that, and recognising this does not mean I'm drug addict or alcoholic.

There are even a very few former-alcoholics that can go back to moderate drinking after drying out. But I venture to say that 99 and 44/100% percent of them can't.

That's exactly what RFCs have degenerated to for disputes like this. They lack any binding resolution, so they're mostly meaningless. The only thing they basically are for a dispute that involves such a systemic abuse is nothing more than pure bureacratic waste...making sure they have all the forms in ordered, signed, dotted, before anything can actually be done. Dispute resolution on

Wikipedia dispute resolution has really become impotent, with such focus on this and ArbCom taking its sweet time while doing nothing.

I think the discussions are far more focused, less noise more signal.

I did some poking around and found that PouponOnToast has made less than 20 article edits of note (ignore reversions and undos) in his 16 months on Wikipedia. It is somewhat ironic for such a user to lecture others on what is acceptable on an encyclopedic project.

I'm not sure that this level of detail is appropriate at this time. Especially since you made the point on WP already anyway. WR should not, in my view, be used as a substitute for dispute resolution on WP or even for editors in good standing talking things out ...

That's not likely to happen. But Lar (O thou couth, kemp, gruntled, and now, we're told, "content" admin on WP), surely you realize that "talking things out" has been severely hamstrung on WP for ages, by the fact that most people can't say anything substantive to may people, without being subjected to a storm of narcissistic-outrage. Even if you avoid swear-words and remain middle level polite, any suggestion that somebody else has done less than a perfect job may still be still met with instant accusations of non-AGF, attacking, stalking, harrassment, double-secret-incivility, meatpuppeting, canvassing and generally trollery, disruption, activity not connected to encyclopedia writing, and so on. Did I forget any? I'm seen more.

In such an atmosphere, anybody not protected by multiple levels of Player-Status is likely to "fold their tents like Arabs, and as silently steal away." Often as not, to here. This is a refugee camp, you know. WR wasn't invented so that WP vandals could have a place to hang out and trade info on how to make better vandalbots. Mostly, it's a place of former idealists who've run across a clique of narcissistic admins on WP, and been burned. There is no "talking things out" in that toxic atmosphere, anymore. I'm not sure if there ever has been. There wasn't in 2005 when I first encountered WP. Maybe before? You know something about the history of the place that I don't? Would you like specific illustrative instances of the general problems I've mentioned above, or do you get me on that?

No, I know nothing more than you do, and I get your point.

If you are right, then I am a Hank Reardon, still valiantly struggling on against hopeless odds, to your John Galt, who only edits for your own enjoyment. But I hope you're wrong. (see my sig) Reasonable people not using the processes is a way to make sure only unreasonable people use them. That seems bad to me.

But calling me a "content" admin? That's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all week. One of my major frustrations, especially when the drama level is high, is how little content I actually get to edit. Too bad I was busy at work and Neil hogged all the fun regarding that Y1 thing.

Surely there must be some corollary to Godwin's Law stating that when Randian analogies come into play, the argument is lost.

Just a niggling question...

If WR isn't an appropriate place to hash out on-Wikipedia things, what off-Wikipedia things are appropriate, if any?

IRC?
Email?
AIM/Yahoo/MSN?
Skype?
Public mail lists (wikien-l/foundation-l etc)?
Private mail lists?
Private wikis?

Just curious.

The last one.

That's Brandon's law.


Oh, that was just because you said you weren't a malcontant. I assume there's an excluded middle, but perhaps not. These things aren't binary, either

And we have many people out there telling us we should feel the weight of the Wikiball on our Atlas shoulders (need a Avatar for this, Somey!), and just shrug.

That would make Wikipedia Hivemind the work of our very own Ragnar.

Ah, well. They also surf, who only Brandt and hate.

-- Milton

Oh, absolutely. The game/argument was lost long ago.

To branch out the subject a bit, I laughed out loud when I read this comment in PoopOnToast's castigatioin of Cla68 for "canvassing" here:Of course, an examination of Poop's edit history, discounting for vandalism reversion and other blind reverts shows fewer than 100 meaningful edits to articles in the last 18 months or so.