Funny that fiction about stalking someone raises alarm bells on WR, given that they welcome amorrow and similar editors. I suspect Snowspinner could collect a lot of valuable advice on what it's like to be a creepy psychopath from some of WR's more respected contributors.
Tolerate == respected. ;) http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=1386&st=20#entry7870 http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=1298#entry7257 http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=1298#entry7218 I'm not sure how you got that conclusion, but posting a lot does not equal "respected" either :) You can't really attack the site for allowing a few wackos to post, there's plenty of crazies (from all kind of POVs, religions and ideologies) on Wikipedia too. If you're wondering why I haven't banned him, I seriously thought about it but I don't think it would achieve much. If he wasn't ranting on there he'd probably be sending creepy emails or something anyway, banning him from WR wouldn't actually achieve much, certainly ain't gonna change his behavior.
One thing a lot of Wikipedia users seem to do is group everyone at WR as though they're one person with some single goal or whatever. Totally untrue. For all the nuts there are reasonable conversations too, General Discussion is usually pretty clean
Anyway, as it's my first post I just thought I'd say hi. :) I am, of course, WR user #1 ( http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1 ) otherwise known as Mistress Selina Kyle :) I expect loads will probably want to flame me and all but whatever, I know a lot tend to ignore NPA when it suits them. ;) (if you don't think that applies here, read this: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l , I did - hint, it's at the very bottom)
-Selina ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mistress_Selina_Kyle?oldid=41845454 / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle?oldid=47363392 (an archive as you can see by going to current version of talk, just not a proper archive ~shrug~ I didn't do it, not my fault it's a weirdly done "archive")) (p.s. "Bob" wasn't me, first I heard about it was on WR)
G'day Selina,
Funny that fiction about stalking someone raises alarm bells on WR, given that they welcome amorrow and similar editors. I suspect Snowspinner could collect a lot of valuable advice on what it's like to be a creepy psychopath from some of WR's more respected contributors.
Tolerate == respected. ;) http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=1386&st=20#entry7870 http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=1298#entry7257 http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=1298#entry7218
Well, I'm pleased to hear that you're less than impressed with amorrow's deranged ranting. Sometimes it's nice to be wrong. In this case, being wrong is so nice that I'd rather be even wronger --- unfortunately, as I understand it, you're not the only WR poster, and there are those who are quite fond of the cowardly little creep.
Is it true that Daniel Brandt, privacy campaigner extraordinaire, enlisted amorrow's aid in tracking down information about one particular female Wikipedian? Is it true that the caring, nurturing environment of WR allowed both gentlemen to enjoy such a meeting of minds?
I'm not sure how you got that conclusion, but posting a lot does not equal "respected" either :) You can't really attack the site for allowing a few wackos to post, there's plenty of crazies (from all kind of POVs, religions and ideologies) on Wikipedia too. If you're wondering why I haven't banned him, I seriously thought about it but I don't think it would achieve much. If he wasn't ranting on there he'd probably be sending creepy emails or something anyway, banning him from WR wouldn't actually achieve much, certainly ain't gonna change his behavior.
amorrow isn't the only person of ... dubious sanity ... posting to WR, although he's certainly the one voted Most Likely to Spend Time in Gaol Because He Can't Keep His Disgusting Little Hands to Himself in an informal, one-person poll recently conducted in this 'ere computer room.
I'm given to understand Zordrac is quite influential at WR. He is, unless I'm very much mistaken, the fellow who seriously entertained the thought that everyone's favourite Yorkshireman, Tony Sidaway, was in fact a CIA plant. He maintains to this day that Stephen Bain, a university student in Melbourne, is moonlighting as an ASIO agent.
You've definitely got wackos infesting your ranks, and some of them are quite important regulars. Not all of them post a danger to people other than themselves, however.
One thing a lot of Wikipedia users seem to do is group everyone at WR as though they're one person with some single goal or whatever. Totally untrue. For all the nuts there are reasonable conversations too, General Discussion is usually pretty clean
I imagine General Discussion is not where you lot decided to hurt Phil Sandifer IRL, then, or post personal information about one of our most popular administrators then gloat when she decided to leave rather than risk further harrassment.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure WR is unfairly maligned at times. You're not *entirely* a nest of crazy losers, I'm sure. But the craziness your forum *does* display is so extreme that I trust you'll understand why we formed this impression, and why your reputation will never go away as long as the users responsible for some of the behaviour I've mentioned remain on the forum.
Anyway, as it's my first post I just thought I'd say hi. :) I am, of
Well, welcome! Try not to let your crazy friends influence your behaviour here, and all will be well ;-)
<snip/>
On 5/25/06, Selina . wikipediareview@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, as it's my first post I just thought I'd say hi. :) I am, of course, WR user #1 ( http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1 ) otherwise known as Mistress Selina Kyle :) I expect loads will probably want to flame me and all but whatever, I know a lot tend to ignore NPA when it suits them. ;) (if you don't think that applies here, read this: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l , I did - hint, it's at the very bottom)
Hello. Thank you for showing up. Would you mind if I asked you a couple of questions? None of these questions are meant as attacks or to be taken sarcastically, but I feel they are legitimate and pertinent questions.
1) What is the point of Wikipedia Review? Do you have a goal for your project?
2) I don't have any preconceived notions about most of the posters, not being familiar with most of their Arbcom cases or whatever grievances they have, but based upon how they act on WR, they seem to want nothing more than to reinforce each other's gripes and chortle over every negative blog post about WP or every bad thing that happens to a Wikipedian. Do you feel this is a fair assessment? If not, could you point to some threads in which more positive or more representative discussion has taken place?
3) Much of the tone of the discussion on WR regarding female administrators of Wikipedia has been quite misogynist. Do you feel this is appropriate for your forum?
4) Bernie Machen, the president of the University of Florida, was contacted via email, which led to the police investigation of Snowspinner, a UF student. Do you think that this mail was sent by a member of WR? If so, how do you feel that fits in with the goals and aims of WR?
5) Katefan0 has left Wikipedia today due to the actions of a WR poster, and WR members are currently discussing contacting her employer or filing a grievance against her with Congress. (http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1422&st=20) Do you feel this is an appropriate use of your forum? Would you feel that WR would be responsible if Katefan0 lost her job? How does this fit in with the goals and aims of WR?
Thank you in advance for your replies.
Rob wrote:
- Katefan0 has left Wikipedia today due to the actions of a WR poster...
Jesus Christ that's disgusting. I couldn't read more than about a quarter of it.
On 5/26/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Rob wrote:
- Katefan0 has left Wikipedia today due to the actions of a WR
poster...
Jesus Christ that's disgusting. I couldn't read more than about a quarter of it.
I managed to read all of it. It was most enlightening. I got to understand WR a little more.
They actually do manage a somewhat one-sided discussion. Everyking and Skyring are not mean-spirited.
Fred
On May 26, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Death Phoenix wrote:
On 5/26/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Rob wrote:
- Katefan0 has left Wikipedia today due to the actions of a WR
poster...
Jesus Christ that's disgusting. I couldn't read more than about a quarter of it.
I managed to read all of it. It was most enlightening. I got to understand WR a little more. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Indeed. They only slag those they consider to be abusive admins, and they both agree that katefan0 wasn't an abusive admin.
On 5/26/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
They actually do manage a somewhat one-sided discussion. Everyking and Skyring are not mean-spirited.
Fred
On May 26, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Death Phoenix wrote:
I managed to read all of it. It was most enlightening. I got to understand WR a little more.
It's the first rule of Wikipedia Review: Every admin is abusive. Heck, I'm abusive because I closed the LUEshi AfD last week.
I have to admit, that is disgusting. Especially sgrayban, who I can't believe thinks destroying someones career is ethical.
It's official. Wikipedia Review is the cancer of the Internet
On 5/27/06, Will Sceptre Noble tintower@tintower.tk wrote:
I have to admit, that is disgusting. Especially sgrayban, who I can't believe thinks destroying someones career is ethical.
You have a bunch of people who tend to be somewhat socially difficult to begin with, add another bunch of people who are not just difficult but downright mental, and give them a single enemy to focus on. Witness what humanity is capable of and be glad that it's just a website on the Internet. "He's a member of group X, therefore common human decency no longer applies."
Unfortunately, being an active admin these days means that sooner or later, you're going to be the target of some abuse. It's almost like our anal criteria of adminship (x% edit summaries, >n% in namespace foo, etc.) have evolved to make sure that only those who are sufficiently die hard Wikipedians will be exposed to this ugly side of a large, open online community. Still, it saddens me greatly whenever a good user like Katefan0 gets trampled on, and I wish we could do more to help them.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 5/27/06, Will Sceptre Noble tintower@tintower.tk wrote:
I have to admit, that is disgusting. Especially sgrayban, who I can't believe thinks destroying someones career is ethical.
You have a bunch of people who tend to be somewhat socially difficult to begin with, add another bunch of people who are not just difficult but downright mental, and give them a single enemy to focus on. Witness what humanity is capable of and be glad that it's just a website on the Internet. "He's a member of group X, therefore common human decency no longer applies."
Unfortunately, being an active admin these days means that sooner or later, you're going to be the target of some abuse. It's almost like our anal criteria of adminship (x% edit summaries, >n% in namespace foo, etc.) have evolved to make sure that only those who are sufficiently die hard Wikipedians will be exposed to this ugly side of a large, open online community. Still, it saddens me greatly whenever a good user like Katefan0 gets trampled on, and I wish we could do more to help them.
A radical proposal for you all then:
Delink administrative actions from user accounts. Give admins access to a shared admin account, with a private log linking actions to the users who have done them, viewable only by other admins.
On 5/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Delink administrative actions from user accounts. Give admins access to a shared admin account, with a private log linking actions to the users who have done them, viewable only by other admins.
Not good, because you then also have to create secret communication channels (for users to ask questions, admins to explain and discuss their actions in complex situations, etc.). Everything2 has a similar system called "Klaproth" which is used to anonymously "nuke" write-ups. See the FAQ at: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=E2%20FAQ%3A%20Klaproth
This should give you an idea about some of the complex problems that result from such an approach.
Everything2 also has the "Everything Death Borg" who anonymously swallows people who make inappropriate comments in the chatterbox. I don't think either approach is likely to engender a more pleasant working atmosphere in an open project that is already suffering constant accusations of cabalism.
Since we would still require a public list of admins (due to RfA), it should also be noted that some of the people who target admins do so indiscriminately. You're an admin? That means you're a member of the ruling class, baby.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 5/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Delink administrative actions from user accounts. Give admins access to a shared admin account, with a private log linking actions to the users who have done them, viewable only by other admins.
Not good, because you then also have to create secret communication channels (for users to ask questions, admins to explain and discuss their actions in complex situations, etc.). Everything2 has a similar system called "Klaproth" which is used to anonymously "nuke" write-ups. See the FAQ at: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=E2%20FAQ%3A%20Klaproth
This should give you an idea about some of the complex problems that result from such an approach.
Everything2 also has the "Everything Death Borg" who anonymously swallows people who make inappropriate comments in the chatterbox. I don't think either approach is likely to engender a more pleasant working atmosphere in an open project that is already suffering constant accusations of cabalism.
Since we would still require a public list of admins (due to RfA), it should also be noted that some of the people who target admins do so indiscriminately. You're an admin? That means you're a member of the ruling class, baby.
Well, we may just have to have a secret cabal, and deal with it. Openness is exposing people to too much risk.
On 5/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Well, we may just have to have a secret cabal, and deal with it. Openness is exposing people to too much risk.
It's almost but not quite a truism: being open and transparent is more likely to make people mad at you than being secretive and doing things behind closed doors. That is the reason, not maliciousness, cabals typically form in the real world. I think the level of openness and transparency in Wikipedia (and I would distinguish it from Wikimedia, the organization) is exemplary and should be retained. However, given the ever increasing amount of outside harassment, I think it would be fair to add a note to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] that becoming an admin may expose you to such harassment, regardless of your actions.
There are plenty of people, myself included, who don't mind dealing with that kind of thing. I've been called a "child molester" on WR, am a proud member of the "Hive Mind", have been accused repeatedly in lengthy rants off-Wikimedia of being a "corrupt admin", etc. It goes with the territory. I'm a freelancer without family, so there are very few ways in which a person on the Internet can harm me -- and my feelings don't get hurt if someone whose opinion doesn't matter to me harasses me.
Erik
On 5/28/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
with the territory. I'm a freelancer without family, so there are very few ways in which a person on the Internet can harm me -- and my feelings don't get hurt if someone whose opinion doesn't matter to me harasses me.
Out of curiosity, doesn't being a freelancer mean your reputation is quite important to your income? Wouldn't you be hurt if "Eric Moeller is a child molester" was the first thing that came up on Google under your name?
(and pray that this post doesn't make that a reality :))
Steve
On 5/28/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Out of curiosity, doesn't being a freelancer mean your reputation is quite important to your income? Wouldn't you be hurt if "Eric Moeller is a child molester" was the first thing that came up on Google under your name?
It certainly helps that my name has an umlaut which Google cannot deal with very well, so it treats a few variants (such as Erik Møller or Erik Moller) as equivalent. The only case that has ever led to a misunderstanding were some comments in my homepage guestbook (which I since deleted), which I had left unattended for a while. It was taken over by two strange subcultures, satanists and religious fundamentalists, who decided that my personal guestbook was the best place to wage the great war between these uncompromising ideologies. One of them even ended up posting under my name (the guestbook didn't have any authentication).
Of course, there's the occasional case where someone contacts me only to be never heard from again, and I sometimes wonder if they decided to google me. ;-)
Erik
On 5/28/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
It certainly helps that my name has an umlaut which Google cannot deal with very well, so it treats a few variants (such as Erik Møller or Erik Moller) as equivalent. The only case that has ever led to a misunderstanding were some comments in my homepage guestbook (which I since deleted), which I had left unattended for a while. It was taken over by two strange subcultures, satanists and religious fundamentalists, who decided that my personal guestbook was the best place to wage the great war between these uncompromising ideologies. One of them even ended up posting under my name (the guestbook didn't have any authentication).
Of course, there's the occasional case where someone contacts me only to be never heard from again, and I sometimes wonder if they decided to google me. ;-)
Ah, cool. Well, I recently discovered that I don't figure in the first 10 pages of Google searches for "Steve Bennett". Overall, that's probably a good thing.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/28/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
with the territory. I'm a freelancer without family, so there are very few ways in which a person on the Internet can harm me -- and my feelings don't get hurt if someone whose opinion doesn't matter to me harasses me.
Out of curiosity, doesn't being a freelancer mean your reputation is quite important to your income? Wouldn't you be hurt if "Eric Moeller is a child molester" was the first thing that came up on Google under your name?
There is actually a strange irony. Some of the people who post to Wikipedia Review are or could be legitimate critics, with thoughtful and perhaps even interesting criticisms of things that we have done wrong, either through honest mistakes, human failings, or bad policy. Such critics might be hard to listen to, but traditionally we have been quite good at doing so, and I am always one of the first to say that we should try to listen to all criticism for nuggets of wisdom.
But those who are potentially legitimate critics do themselves a serious disservice by participating in a forum with people who are, quite simply, mental cases, and who discredit the entire operation with what can only be classified as offensive hate speech and stalking.
--Jimbo
On 5/28/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
But those who are potentially legitimate critics do themselves a serious disservice by participating in a forum with people who are, quite simply, mental cases, and who discredit the entire operation with what can only be classified as offensive hate speech and stalking.
--Jimbo
Problem is that you have just described a fair sized section of our active critics. Makes it very hard to have a forum discusing wikipedia's problems without these people joining in. depening on how cynical you are this can be viewed as a defence mechanism.
No, you haven't even remotely been good at listening to criticisms whenever it comes to the behavior of certain admins who are far too close to you, Mr. Wales.
Instead, you treat them like dirt, you harass them, your high personages spin lies about them, and desperately do all they can to ensure that anyone with a legitimate gripe is labeled a "troll."
I'll note that once, I spoke to you on IRC, and you demanded that I not refer to you as "preening", and that you would in return speak with me later. You never bothered responding to my PM attempts again.
I've never participated on wikipediareview, despite the many times your admins have inundated me with links to it in #wikipedia.
So you'll understand if I find this little claim of yours hard to swallow. Far from being "good" at listening to critics, you do your level best to block them out.
A. Nony Mouse
On 5/28/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/28/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
with the territory. I'm a freelancer without family, so there are very few ways in which a person on the Internet can harm me -- and my feelings don't get hurt if someone whose opinion doesn't matter to me harasses me.
Out of curiosity, doesn't being a freelancer mean your reputation is quite important to your income? Wouldn't you be hurt if "Eric Moeller is a child molester" was the first thing that came up on Google under your name?
There is actually a strange irony. Some of the people who post to Wikipedia Review are or could be legitimate critics, with thoughtful and perhaps even interesting criticisms of things that we have done wrong, either through honest mistakes, human failings, or bad policy. Such critics might be hard to listen to, but traditionally we have been quite good at doing so, and I am always one of the first to say that we should try to listen to all criticism for nuggets of wisdom.
But those who are potentially legitimate critics do themselves a serious disservice by participating in a forum with people who are, quite simply, mental cases, and who discredit the entire operation with what can only be classified as offensive hate speech and stalking.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/28/06, A. Nony Mouse mousyme@gmail.com wrote:
I'll note that once, I spoke to you on IRC, and you demanded that I not refer to you as "preening", and that you would in return speak with me later. You never bothered responding to my PM attempts again.
There's nothing incompatible with being open to listening to constructive criticism and refusing to converse with people who insult you.
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
…responding to Jimmy Wales… I'll note that once, I spoke to you on IRC, and you demanded that I not refer to you as "preening", and that you would in return speak with me later. You never bothered responding to my PM attempts again.
I don't think you'll find many people who would regard Jimmy's response as anything less than perfectly normal. If someone was rude enough to refer to me as "preening" I suspect i would likely tell them to push off in much stronger terms than Jimmy probably used.
HTH HAND
On 5/29/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
But those who are potentially legitimate critics do themselves a serious disservice by participating in a forum with people who are, quite simply, mental cases, and who discredit the entire operation with what can only be classified as offensive hate speech and stalking.
The problem, of course, is that it was the nutcases who started the forum, and the legitimate critics were drawn there in a search for an outlet for their criticism. Someone should start a forum and invite the legitimate critics there, and give them the chance to separate themselves from the pure trolls. Not only will they be able to properly produce criticism, but we will be able to do something with it to improve the project. External criticism is something that currently comes from far too few quarters.
On 5/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
A radical proposal for you all then:
Delink administrative actions from user accounts. Give admins access to a shared admin account, with a private log linking actions to the users who have done them, viewable only by other admins.
Or simply, create a new account for admins at around the time they are adminified. Some effort would be needed to make the connection between that account and their real account not too obvious.
Steve
On 28/05/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
A radical proposal for you all then:
Delink administrative actions from user accounts. Give admins access to a shared admin account, with a private log linking actions to the users who have done them, viewable only by other admins.
Or simply, create a new account for admins at around the time they are adminified. Some effort would be needed to make the connection between that account and their real account not too obvious.
Not that I'm sold on it, but if you're going down *that* avenue, just RFA in batches of twenty or thirty and hand out accounts en bloc...
On 5/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
A radical proposal for you all then:
Delink administrative actions from user accounts. Give admins access to a shared admin account, with a private log linking actions to the users who have done them, viewable only by other admins.
No openness is important. In any case there is still the WR admin around.
On 5/28/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Still, it saddens me greatly whenever a good user like Katefan0 gets trampled on, and I wish we could do more to help them.
I think it's time to destroy WR. They've had more than six months to actually do some reviewing and come up with some constructive criticisms, and have offered nothing but hatred.
On 5/28/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Still, it saddens me greatly whenever a good user like Katefan0 gets trampled on, and I wish we could do more to help them.
I think it's time to destroy WR. They've had more than six months to actually do some reviewing and come up with some constructive criticisms, and have offered nothing but hatred.
Ignore them.
Since when was WR a criticism site anyway? It's just a place for banned editors to slag of Wikipedia
On 5/28/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's time to destroy WR. They've had more than six months to actually do some reviewing and come up with some constructive criticisms, and have offered nothing but hatred.
Ignore them.
Ignoring them didn't do Katefan0 any good.
On 5/28/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's time to destroy WR. They've had more than six months to actually do some reviewing and come up with some constructive criticisms, and have offered nothing but hatred.
Ignore them.
Ignoring them didn't do Katefan0 any good.
Brandt is seperate from WR. Need to find him something else to campain against.
On 5/28/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's time to destroy WR. They've had more than six months to actually do some reviewing and come up with some constructive criticisms, and have offered nothing but hatred.
Ignore them.
Ignoring them didn't do Katefan0 any good.
Brandt is seperate from WR. Need to find him something else to campain against.
Not anymore, they've achieved a sort of nasty symbiosis. WR has become an echo chamber for trolls, where their grievances are reinforced and rationalized by other trolls. Brandt, despite his claims of being a private person, is an attention whore and craves the cheering section that WR provides. He'd still be nasty and angry without this audience, but they spur him on to new depths like threatening Katefan0's livelihood. And without this audience, he probably would wander off and find something more sane to do.
On 5/29/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Ignore them.
Ignoring them didn't do Katefan0 any good.
This is exactly the point. To start with, they at least had the potential to offer something constructive that we could use to improve the project. The only productive threads were ones started by me and other WP regulars in the vain hope of eliciting something positive, but every discussion degenerated into an abuse-fest against whichever admin was out of favour that week.
We tolerated their existence as a legitimate source of criticism, which is not only entirely appropriate, it should be encouraged; external criticism is the best kind. I used to think that good WP users could participate and mould WR into something beneficial to the project. Then I used to think that we should all leave them alone so they could consume themselves in their own bile.
But now their petty hatred is having consequences in the real world, and for me, that is crossing a line. Forgive me for being so uncharacteristically agressive, but I have simply had enough of WR.
On 5/29/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Brandt is seperate from WR. Need to find him something else to campain against.
WR serves Brandt as a ready made circle of sycophants.
On 5/29/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
This is exactly the point. To start with, they at least had the potential to offer something constructive that we could use to improve the project. The only productive threads were ones started by me and other WP regulars in the vain hope of eliciting something positive, but every discussion degenerated into an abuse-fest against whichever admin was out of favour that week.
We tolerated their existence as a legitimate source of criticism, which is not only entirely appropriate, it should be encouraged; external criticism is the best kind. I used to think that good WP users could participate and mould WR into something beneficial to the project. Then I used to think that we should all leave them alone so they could consume themselves in their own bile.
But now their petty hatred is having consequences in the real world, and for me, that is crossing a line. Forgive me for being so uncharacteristically agressive, but I have simply had enough of WR.
Nothing we can do. Legaly they are untouchable. DOS attacks or forum invasions are counter productive. Asking nicely is unlikely to work. I doubt they are breaking lunarpages' TOS and even if they are they can server hop.
WR serves Brandt as a ready made circle of sycophants.
Blogs and the like would provide them otherwise. There are people who hate us. There are people who want to see us hurt. There are people who want to see us fail.
On 5/28/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing we can do. Legaly they are untouchable.
Are they? Surely some of their behavior has crossed or will cross the line into illegal stalking.
On 5/29/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing we can do. Legaly they are untouchable.
Are they? Surely some of their behavior has crossed or will cross the line into illegal stalking.
I doubt it although IANAL and my knowlage of criminal law is minimal. In any case that only hits indivdual members.
On 5/28/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing we can do. Legaly they are untouchable.
Are they? Surely some of their behavior has crossed or will cross the line into illegal stalking.
I doubt it although IANAL and my knowlage of criminal law is minimal. In any case that only hits indivdual members.
Yes, it only hits individual members, but if what some of their activities ARE illegal and enforceable (and I'm thinking of what happened with Jayne Hitchcock's stalker), it at least discourages WR members from doing anything illegal. They can harp on Wikipedia all they want, but if they want to do something illegal, they'd better watch their backs.
I have a better idea. You could take the legitimate criticisms of admins that they have, and work on them.
And when someone complains about wikipedia, legitimate or otherwise (but especially legitimate), you could work on trying to resolve the problem rather than spamming them with links to wikipediareview.
I saw this all the time watching the IRC channel back in January and February. Every time someone came in, the channel would light up with 4-5 admins (usually the same ones) spamming them to "oh just go to wikipediareview."
If it's populated with nincompoops, it's wikipedia's own nincompoops who sent them there. And yes, wikipediareview DOES have legitimate posters and legitimate calls for reform.
But then again, coming from someone whose greatest desire is to "destroy" another website for daring to criticize you...
A. Nony Mouse
On 5/28/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Still, it saddens me greatly whenever a good user like Katefan0 gets trampled on, and I wish we could do more to help them.
I think it's time to destroy WR. They've had more than six months to actually do some reviewing and come up with some constructive criticisms, and have offered nothing but hatred.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/28/06, A. Nony Mouse mousyme@gmail.com wrote:
If it's populated with nincompoops, it's wikipedia's own nincompoops who sent them there. And yes, wikipediareview DOES have legitimate posters and legitimate calls for reform.
But then again, coming from someone whose greatest desire is to "destroy" another website for daring to criticize you...
Is it that you don't understand the difference between criticism and trying to get someone fired from their job, or is it that you want to pretend the latter incident didn't happen?
G'day Selina,
Funny that fiction about stalking someone raises alarm bells on WR, given that they welcome amorrow and similar editors. I suspect Snowspinner could collect a lot of valuable advice on what it's like to be a creepy psychopath from some of WR's more respected contributors.
Tolerate == respected. ;)
Does "tolerate" mean "egg them on"? http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1422&st=66
As long as some posters on Wikipedia Review are eager to read amorrow's cowardly attacks and threats, and stand and agree (even applaud) as he puts up yet another stalk page on his website, your reputation will be deservedly in the mud.
You *want* to be a place where people treated unfairly by Wikipedia can go and bitch. But what you *are* is a place where people we have gotten rid of for being too tiresome, insane or even dangerous can go and link up and talk about how one day they'll get revenge for imagined slights. You're pathetic, and you'll continue to *be* pathetic until you finally get around to cleaning up your act. You think Wikipedia has problems? Mate, we're a picture of health by comparison to some of our critics. Grow up and pull your collective heads in.