[WikiEN-l] ( First post ) RE: "In which Snowspinner pwns WR." [longish]

[Mark Gallagher]

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/>

-- 
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse