Another WMF employee, er, admin, bites the dust

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:08 pm

enwikibadscience wrote:I don't read usually the Jimbo threads here, but he seems obsessed with you.

I think it's a symbiotic relationship. Neither of them would have anything to talk about if the other one disappeared (abducted by Abd or something).

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:42 pm

Poetlister wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:I don't read usually the Jimbo threads here, but he seems obsessed with you.
I think it's a symbiotic relationship. Neither of them would have anything to talk about if the other one disappeared (abducted by Abd or something).

Abd (T-C-L) is an alien?

Abd · Unread post by **Abd** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 1:50 am

enwikibadscience wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:I don't read usually the Jimbo threads here, but he seems obsessed with you.
I think it's a symbiotic relationship. Neither of them would have anything to talk about if the other one disappeared (abducted by Abd or something).
Abd (T-C-L) is an alien?

Apparently, to Wikipedians, anyway.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:37 pm

enwikibadscience wrote:I don't read usually the Jimbo threads here, but he seems obsessed with you.

Yeah, Jimbo is the one who's kookoo for Cocoa Puffs. I mean he doesn't dare vote in Florida for fear his street address will be discovered, and then he flees all the way across the Atlantic?

Ixnay on the cray cray, Jimmy boy!

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 4:38 pm

Triptych wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:I don't read usually the Jimbo threads here, but he seems obsessed with you.
Yeah, Jimbo is the one who's kookoo for Cocoa Puffs. I mean he doesn't dare vote in Florida for fear his street address will be discovered, and then he flees all the way across the Atlantic?

Ixnay on the cray cray, Jimmy boy!

He doesn't vote because he's too important to have an address on the voting rolls?

Well, that's new....

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:54 pm

enwikibadscience wrote:He doesn't vote because he's too important to have an address on the voting rolls?

Well, that's new....

FYI: http://www.mediaite.com/online/wikipedi ... f-stalkers. Mediate ran a story on it. "“I have serious scary stalkers," said scraggly-bearded man.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:19 pm

Triptych wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:He doesn't vote because he's too important to have an address on the voting rolls?

Well, that's new....
FYI: http://www.mediaite.com/online/wikipedi ... f-stalkers. Mediate ran a story on it. "“I have serious scary stalkers," said scraggly-bearded man.

Presumably he'd also prefer to vote for anonymous politicians. I guess it would save money for the secret service if nobody knew what User:POTUS looked like or where he lives.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:32 pm

SB_Johnny wrote:Presumably he'd also prefer to vote for anonymous politicians. I guess it would save money for the secret service if nobody knew what User:POTUS looked like or where he lives.

Or indeed whether he was as old as the law requires to do the job or was in fact only 11.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:35 am

Poor Ryan's editing history has gone a bit cold.

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Thu May 29, 2014 11:55 pm

Could someone please tell me why it's worthwhile finding out his offline name or any other details outside of his/her life on WP?

And please, before you answer, please tell me if the same reasoning would or would not apply to questions about your own identity. Bonus points: if you have the courage, please answer the same questions as if they were applied to you.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu May 29, 2014 11:58 pm

wllm wrote:Could someone please tell me why it's worthwhile finding out his offline name or any other details outside of his/her life on WP?

And please, before you answer, please tell me if the same reasoning would or would not apply to questions about your own identity. Bonus points: if you have the courage, please answer the same questions as if they were applied to you.

The cult of anonymity lives here and there, both.

It absolutely weakens the moral authority of this site.

RfB

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Fri May 30, 2014 12:00 am

wllm wrote:Could someone please tell me why it's worthwhile finding out his offline name or any other details outside of his/her life on WP?

And please, before you answer, please tell me if the same reasoning would or would not apply to questions about your own identity. Bonus points: if you have the courage, please answer the same questions as if they were applied to you.

I think it's time for Will to learn about Mr Awbrey.

Edit: Of course, it's been explained to Tim several thousand times before and he's steadfastly refused to address the response, instead returning to his original point as if no one has ever responded to it, so there's no guarantee anyone else will listen.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Fri May 30, 2014 12:04 am

Notvelty wrote:
wllm wrote:Could someone please tell me why it's worthwhile finding out his offline name or any other details outside of his/her life on WP?

And please, before you answer, please tell me if the same reasoning would or would not apply to questions about your own identity. Bonus points: if you have the courage, please answer the same questions as if they were applied to you.
I think it's time for Will to learn about Mr Awbrey.

Edit: Of course, it's been explained to Tim several thousand times before and he's steadfastly refused to address the response, instead returning to his original point as if no one has ever responded to it, so there's no guarantee anyone else will listen.

To summarize what I've heard several thousand times already: that's an encyclopedia, so contributions should not be anonymous; but this is a criticism site, which is not comparable, so it should be.

Hypocrisy.

State your names and criticize like adults.

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri May 30, 2014 12:07 am

wllm wrote:Could someone please tell me why it's worthwhile finding out his offline name or any other details outside of his/her life on WP?

And please, before you answer, please tell me if the same reasoning would or would not apply to questions about your own identity. Bonus points: if you have the courage, please answer the same questions as if they were applied to you.

Because his "real life identity" lead directly to his skeletons.
He used a sock puppet to accuse someone else of trivializing a suicide while he was running snuffster.com.

Hypocrisy writ large.
What part of this is unclear?

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Fri May 30, 2014 12:24 am

I think some people take anonymity a lot more seriously than others. For example I use the user name Kumioko but my real life identity isn't really that hard to figure out. Tons of Folks at Wikipedia know, as do quite a few from the WMF because I used to attend a fair number of the meetups and stuff in person. I had a lot on my Facebook, etc. Others though hide behind their persona for one reason or another so some think its of interest to them why they would be so secretive. Personally I haven't said anything on here or on Wiki I wouldn't say in person, so I don't feel I need to hide from it. Some people feel other wise.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Fri May 30, 2014 12:32 am

In a member's Wikipediocracy profile, there are fields you can fill in if you don't mind disclosing a bit about yourself. I recently added 'Actual Name.'

Here's my level of reveal.
Location: San Diego
Occupation: Writer
Interests: writing, computers, military, politics, waffles
Website:
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns

My websites are presently turned off and in hiatus. When I restore the one I'm redesigning, I'll insert that field.

I have had a few minor real-life events due to cranks. At the moment, things are uneventful. It is trivially easy to dox me, as I have a Web presence.

Alison · Unread post by **Alison** » Fri May 30, 2014 12:35 am

Some people are concerned that linking their RL identity can lead to RL harassment: real harassment, not the Wikipedia definition. Some of these concerns are clearly overblown, but some are not. It's often difficult to discern who's being pseudonymous because they like being an ass / posting libel on WP without any repercussions, and who's genuinely concerned that some weirdo will target them.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri May 30, 2014 12:37 am

Alison wrote:Some people are concerned that linking their RL identity can lead to RL harassment: real harassment, not the Wikipedia definition. Some of these concerns are clearly overblown, but some are not. It's often difficult to discern who's being pseudonymous because they like being an ass / posting libel on WP without any repercussions, and who's genuinely concerned that some weirdo will target them.

Given the recent abuse report to Kumioko's employer by agents of the WMF, it seems unlikely that I will be ponying in up any identifying information.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Fri May 30, 2014 2:15 am

"Agents of the WMF" sounds cool, like they should be carrying a badge and gun and wearing dark suits and sunglasses. But in reality that would probably be the worst thing ever.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Fri May 30, 2014 2:22 am

Hex wrote:"Agents of the WMF" sounds cool, like they should be carrying a badge and gun and wearing dark suits and sunglasses. But in reality that would probably be the worst thing ever.

I could see them doing that, all too easily. "Dude, we're all characters from The Matrix!"

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Fri May 30, 2014 2:56 am

I severely doubt that they could wear a suit as well as Wikipe-tan is there (nice find, very appropriate).

It would probably be somewhere between this:

and this:

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri May 30, 2014 2:58 am

Hex wrote:I severely doubt that they could wear a suit as well as Wikipe-tan is there (nice find, very appropriate).

It would probably be more like:

M'Lady

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri May 30, 2014 3:04 am

A UK version

Oh dear god!!
Someone please, please, please pay attention to MeeeeEEEEeeeeEEEEeeee

Looking at you Oliver Keyes and Ryan "Kaldari"

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Fri May 30, 2014 8:30 am

wllm wrote:Could someone please tell me why it's worthwhile finding out his offline name or any other details outside of his/her life on WP?

And please, before you answer, please tell me if the same reasoning would or would not apply to questions about your own identity. Bonus points: if you have the courage, please answer the same questions as if they were applied to you.

In general it is not.

Personally I'd recommend anonymity in almost all online activity. If even only to stop you being profiled by quasi-criminal mega tech corporations. As such I use a different email address for every site I signup to, and for every online purchase. Other than that there are an immense number of arseholes online that you really wouldn't want messing with your real life. So in general you'd want to keep your online activities distant from you home, and job.

OTOH there are some sites where the things posted there are not taken to be common website chitter chatter and mere opinion. But are taken to be near truthful statements about a thing, event, or person. This includes news reporting sites, product review sites, and things that posit themselves as encyclopedias.

This site is in the mere opinion camp, wikipedia pretends to be in the "truthful statements" camp.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Fri May 30, 2014 6:15 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Which gets me back to another gripe.

Who in the hell is vetting these people prior to hiring them?!?!
This is the organization that made Carolyn Doran Chief Operating Officer despite a prior theft conviction. It's obvious that the only criterion for employment at the WMF is an unswerving dedication to the "awesomeness" of Wikipedia.

Honestly I think a lot of the people at the WMF are asleep at the wheel and have been for sometime. Sure they like to sit around and pat each other on the back and talk about how grand life is that they work for this website. But then again, a lot of them are totally unqualified for the jobs they are doing, many couldn't get a job prior to getting the one they have (and therefore will do and say about anything to keep it), most of them don't edit at all let alone know anything about hte community, what it needs or what it wants. The WMF is a mess from top to bottom and I for one hope that as Lila gets her wheels she starts to cut out a lot of the dead weight and gets some new blood in there that actually knows what they are doing.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri May 30, 2014 6:27 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Which gets me back to another gripe.

Who in the hell is vetting these people prior to hiring them?!?!
This is the organization that made Carolyn Doran Chief Operating Officer despite a prior theft conviction. It's obvious that the only criterion for employment at the WMF is an unswerving dedication to the "awesomeness" of Wikipedia.
Honestly I think a lot of the people at the WMF are asleep at the wheel and have been for sometime. Sure they like to sit around and pat each other on the back and talk about how grand life is that they work for this website. But then again, a lot of them are totally unqualified for the jobs they are doing, many couldn't get a job prior to getting the one they have (and therefore will do and say about anything to keep it), most of them don't edit at all let alone know anything about hte community, what it needs or what it wants. The WMF is a mess from top to bottom and I for one hope that as Lila gets her wheels she starts to cut out a lot of the dead weight and gets some new blood in there that actually knows what they are doing.

One hundred and twenty seven engineers.
Two years later and they still haven't made even a half-assed visual editor.

Look at hiring practices and the utter lack of qualifications of the human resources people.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Fri May 30, 2014 8:19 pm

Vigilant wrote: One hundred and twenty seven engineers.
Two years later and they still haven't made even a half-assed visual editor.

Oh, I don't know. I've been using it a bit recently and it's at least 40% ass.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat May 31, 2014 9:06 am

Hex wrote:
Vigilant wrote: One hundred and twenty seven engineers.
Two years later and they still haven't made even a half-assed visual editor.
Oh, I don't know. I've been using it a bit recently and it's at least 40% ass.

I've been using it for gnoming. Regrets, I've had a few...

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sat May 31, 2014 3:09 pm

Hex wrote:
Vigilant wrote: One hundred and twenty seven engineers.
Two years later and they still haven't made even a half-assed visual editor.
Oh, I don't know. I've been using it a bit recently and it's at least 40% ass.

Thats the problem, VE has been out for over a year and after all the work they have put into it over the last year its just now getting to a point where it is semi useful. If they would have released it now, with all these changes a lot of drama would have been avoided and I think the community would have been a lot more receptive. But because the WMF developers wanted to rush it into production before it was ready, the community push back was massive. This type situation is what I am talking about when I refer to the WMF as being inept or lacking the skills needed to do their job effectively.

everyking · Unread post by **everyking** » Sat May 31, 2014 5:23 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Hex wrote:
Vigilant wrote: One hundred and twenty seven engineers.
Two years later and they still haven't made even a half-assed visual editor.
Oh, I don't know. I've been using it a bit recently and it's at least 40% ass.
Thats the problem, VE has been out for over a year and after all the work they have put into it over the last year its just now getting to a point where it is semi useful. If they would have released it now, with all these changes a lot of drama would have been avoided and I think the community would have been a lot more receptive. But because the WMF developers wanted to rush it into production before it was ready, the community push back was massive. This type situation is what I am talking about when I refer to the WMF as being inept or lacking the skills needed to do their job effectively.

It's a huge waste of time and money. If the goal is to attract new editors, well, just stop blocking people left and right and change the horrible atmosphere that drives everyone away. Even if we have a great, functioning Visual Editor, how is that going to help if no one wants to sign up for the abuse that's become typical of Wikipedia culture? If people want to edit, figuring out the wiki markup is not very hard. The hard part is surviving in that vicious environment.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sat May 31, 2014 6:29 pm

everyking wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
Hex wrote:
Vigilant wrote: One hundred and twenty seven engineers.
Two years later and they still haven't made even a half-assed visual editor.
Oh, I don't know. I've been using it a bit recently and it's at least 40% ass.
Thats the problem, VE has been out for over a year and after all the work they have put into it over the last year its just now getting to a point where it is semi useful. If they would have released it now, with all these changes a lot of drama would have been avoided and I think the community would have been a lot more receptive. But because the WMF developers wanted to rush it into production before it was ready, the community push back was massive. This type situation is what I am talking about when I refer to the WMF as being inept or lacking the skills needed to do their job effectively.
It's a huge waste of time and money. If the goal is to attract new editors, well, just stop blocking people left and right and change the horrible atmosphere that drives everyone away. Even if we have a great, functioning Visual Editor, how is that going to help if no one wants to sign up for the abuse that's become typical of Wikipedia culture? If people want to edit, figuring out the wiki markup is not very hard. The hard part is surviving in that vicious environment.

Your right of course. VE isn't going to fix the problem.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 2:14 pm

I guess that the WMF/ARBCOM thinks that Ryan Kaldari has done his time in the barrel and should be let out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... troversies

Perhaps the San Francisco Chronicle and the Mercury News would be interested in the scraped contents of snuffster.com?

Dennis Brown · Unread post by **Dennis Brown** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:31 pm

Anonymity on the internet is an illusion. Most anyone on Wikipedia could walk up and knock on my door if they have an inkling of tech savvy. I'm not particularly worried. If I used a pseudonym, it wouldn't change that, it would just increase the time by a marginal degree. Even posting here now, Zoloft can tell I'm posting from a place that isn't my home in Lexington, because he has access to the logs. This is why I use my real name everywhere on the web, don't hide my general location, don't hide my occupation, etc. I do this so I never get drawn into the false impression that anything is anonymous on the internet, so I don't do or say anything online that I wouldn't do or say in person.

I understand why some choose to use a fake identity to edit, particularly if they live in a less than "free" society, or have a job where the topics they edit might reflect poorly on them, or if someone is simply editing highly controversial topics and fear real world harassment. Still, they shouldn't be foolish enough to think they are really anonymous. Any WMF dev can read the *full* logs at Wikipedia, and most doxing comes not from logs, but from words and style: behavioral evidence. No amount of webhosts and proxies can protect you from that.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 4:01 pm

Dennis Brown wrote:Anonymity on the internet is an illusion. Most anyone on Wikipedia could walk up and knock on my door if they have an inkling of tech savvy. I'm not particularly worried. If I used a pseudonym, it wouldn't change that, it would just increase the time by a marginal degree. Even posting here now, Zoloft can tell I'm posting from a place that isn't my home in Lexington, because he has access to the logs. This is why I use my real name everywhere on the web, don't hide my general location, don't hide my occupation, etc. I do this so I never get drawn into the false impression that anything is anonymous on the internet, so I don't do or say anything online that I wouldn't do or say in person.

I understand why some choose to use a fake identity to edit, particularly if they live in a less than "free" society, or have a job where the topics they edit might reflect poorly on them, or if someone is simply editing highly controversial topics and fear real world harassment. Still, they shouldn't be foolish enough to think they are really anonymous. Any WMF dev can read the *full* logs at Wikipedia, and most doxing comes not from logs, but from words and style: behavioral evidence. No amount of webhosts and proxies can protect you from that.

First off, welcome to our fetid basement.

Secondly, I'm not understanding the point of your post.

Dennis Brown · Unread post by **Dennis Brown** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 5:26 pm

I probably should have quoted Kumioko up higher. Looking now, I see how confusing that might seem given the totality of the thread. It may take a post or two to remember that.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 6:22 pm

Dennis Brown wrote:I probably should have quoted Kumioko up higher. Looking now, I see how confusing that might seem given the totality of the thread. It may take a post or two to remember that.

Welcome to WPO, Dennis!

RfB

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:38 pm

Kumioko's post was about the futility of anonymity. But the point of this topic was to explore Ryan Kaldari's actions and whether he should be an employee of the WMF.

Dennis, do you have anything to say regarding that?

Dennis Brown · Unread post by **Dennis Brown** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:43 pm

Zoloft wrote:Kumioko's post was about the futility of anonymity. But the point of this topic was to explore Ryan Kaldari's actions and whether he should be an employee of the WMF.

Dennis, do you have anything to say regarding that?

I closed the discussion on his socking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... y_an_admin, although was a bit limited in what I could do other than condemnation in a clear and obvious way. Afterwards, I believe I called him a "jackass" on Eric's page, but that was part of an exercise to prove hypocrisy, as people were attacking Eric for making a blunt comment about him, so I ramped it up with a personal attack and no one seemed to mind, proving the bias against Eric (2nd time I've done that). But to answer your question, WMF can obviously hire whoever they want, and there are at least a few employees who I think they could do without, but I'm not sure I'm qualified to make the actual call.

It's kind of like being an admin: After an action, it is easy to say an admin did it wrong, or should have done something different. Armchair quarterback, so to speak. The problem is, you don't have the same set of information to work with, you don't have to live with the actual consequences. Same with the WMF. If I'm honest with myself, I don't have enough information about the employees to sit here and say who they should or shouldn't keep. I don't have the same info they have. I could say that I would like it if $x or $y is fired, but that might be more of my bias showing than a logical decision that a business makes. To compare: As a business owner, I might have employees you wouldn't consider hiring due to "hang ups", but to me they are worth the hassles because of some skill or talent. Again, we would have different sets of information to judge by.

Probably not the answer you were looking for, but I think it is a rational perspective, even if a minority one.

MMAR · Unread post by **MMAR** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:31 pm

Greetings Dennis

Thanks for finally raising the courage to post, since you've been lurking for a while now, for reasons I suspect I accurately outlined elsewhere (thread locked, sorry) viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6810

On the subject of fitness of appointees, could you please start a separate thread in the Governance section, which properly outlines the circumstances and events of these two times you've deliberately 'disrupted Wikipedia to make a point' (don't think I'm wrong in calling it that, IRC that's how you described it yourself), detailing your justifications for such behaviour. An assessment of their success would also be apropos. Thanks in advance.

Dennis Brown · Unread post by **Dennis Brown** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:01 pm

MMAR wrote:
Greetings Dennis Thanks for finally raising the courage to post, since you've been lurking for a while now, for reasons I suspect I accurately outlined elsewhere (thread locked, sorry) viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6810

On the subject of fitness of appointees, could you please start a separate thread in the Governance section, which properly outlines the circumstances and events of these two times you've deliberately 'disrupted Wikipedia to make a point' (don't think I'm wrong in calling it that, IRC that's how you described it yourself), detailing your justifications for such behaviour. An assessment of their success would also be apropos. Thanks in advance.

I'm not really into documenting stuff outside of enwp, it sounds like work. All the links are already there, and that one is pretty easy to track down with the one link I provided. Chillum did give me a friendly warning well afterwards, but I think he handled it well, and although he disagreed with me, he understood and respected my motives. Btw, I have 50k edits in 9 years, so I'm sure I've violated POINT more than twice. Never when editing, of course, as I tend to edit uncontroversial topics and usually work alone, although I love working with Eric on bigger projects. I've never socked, haven't used IRC in forever and never did to rally troops. Can't say I belong to any group, cabal or gang over there. A page on my "adventures" would be rather bland reading, I'm afraid. Just the occasional POINT violation and lots of mundane mopping. My failed attempt to make community desysopping a reality might be interesting, at WP:RAS. I've written a bunch of essays, they are linked on my user page if someone was interested. That is about it.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:03 pm

Dennis Brown wrote:
MMAR wrote:
Greetings Dennis Thanks for finally raising the courage to post, since you've been lurking for a while now, for reasons I suspect I accurately outlined elsewhere (thread locked, sorry) viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6810

On the subject of fitness of appointees, could you please start a separate thread in the Governance section, which properly outlines the circumstances and events of these two times you've deliberately 'disrupted Wikipedia to make a point' (don't think I'm wrong in calling it that, IRC that's how you described it yourself), detailing your justifications for such behaviour. An assessment of their success would also be apropos. Thanks in advance.
I'm not really into documenting stuff outside of enwp, it sounds like work. All the links are already there, and that one is pretty easy to track down with the one link I provided. Chillum did give me a friendly warning well afterwards, but I think he handled it well, and although he disagreed with me, he understood and respected my motives. Btw, I have 50k edits in 9 years, so I'm sure I've violated POINT more than twice. Never when editing, of course, as I tend to edit uncontroversial topics and usually work alone, although I love working with Eric on bigger projects. I've never socked, haven't used IRC in forever and never did to rally troops. Can't say I belong to any group, cabal or gang over there. A page on my "adventures" would be rather bland reading, I'm afraid. Just the occasional POINT violation and lots of mundane mopping. My failed attempt to make community desysopping a reality might be interesting, at WP:RAS. I've written a bunch of essays, they are linked on my user page if someone was interested. That is about it.

It's probably just that you can't see it from the inside.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:14 pm

MMAR wrote:...

Greetings Dennis Thanks for finally raising the courage to post, since you've been lurking for a while now, for reasons I suspect I accurately outlined elsewhere (thread locked, sorry) viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6810

...

I have flushed that topic of the trolling and backhanded sass, and have unlocked it, since it mentions Dennis a lot, has now been invoked in this topic, and Dennis has the right of reply.

MMAR · Unread post by **MMAR** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:16 pm

Dennis Brown wrote:
MMAR wrote:
Greetings Dennis Thanks for finally raising the courage to post, since you've been lurking for a while now, for reasons I suspect I accurately outlined elsewhere (thread locked, sorry) viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6810

On the subject of fitness of appointees, could you please start a separate thread in the Governance section, which properly outlines the circumstances and events of these two times you've deliberately 'disrupted Wikipedia to make a point' (don't think I'm wrong in calling it that, IRC that's how you described it yourself), detailing your justifications for such behaviour. An assessment of their success would also be apropos. Thanks in advance.
I'm not really into documenting stuff outside of enwp, it sounds like work. All the links are already there, and that one is pretty easy to track down with the one link I provided. Chillum did give me a friendly warning well afterwards, but I think he handled it well, and although he disagreed with me, he understood and respected my motives. Btw, I have 50k edits in 9 years, so I'm sure I've violated POINT more than twice. Never when editing, of course, as I tend to edit uncontroversial topics and usually work alone, although I love working with Eric on bigger projects. I've never socked, haven't used IRC in forever and never did to rally troops. Can't say I belong to any group, cabal or gang over there. A page on my "adventures" would be rather bland reading, I'm afraid. Just the occasional POINT violation and lots of mundane mopping. My failed attempt to make community desysopping a reality might be interesting, at WP:RAS. I've written a bunch of essays, they are linked on my user page if someone was interested. That is about it.

Well, the point was for you to lay it out in your words, so we might understand what the hell you think you were doing. I mean, we can do it for you, it's kind of what we do, but I think you might not like our interpretation of events. From my recollection, I saw Chillum warned you, but I don't recall any offering of respect or understanding. Clearing up differences in interpretation like that are pretty important, given what particular group I and a few others think you can be fairly characterised in (to be polite, it's the poor admin group).

Dennis Brown · Unread post by **Dennis Brown** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:35 pm

Zoloft wrote:
MMAR wrote:...

Greetings Dennis Thanks for finally raising the courage to post, since you've been lurking for a while now, for reasons I suspect I accurately outlined elsewhere (thread locked, sorry) viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6810

...
I have flushed that topic of the trolling and backhanded sass, and have unlocked it, since it mentions Dennis a lot, has now been invoked in this topic, and Dennis has the right of reply.

I appreciate, I had not seen that thread. Real life keeps me busy, so I haven't seen 99% of the site. Full time job, new business, middle of an ugly divorce, I have plenty enough going on. I think I would probably pass on replying there. Everyone has a right to their opinion. I do read some things here, which is how I got the idea to start the article on Susan Brown (professor) . I've started a couple of article that way, always giving credit (see first edit) where it is due. In that respect, I've found the site useful. There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize Wikipedia, and I usually do it there, online, and I even participate in getting real change, so I do more than give it lip service. What I'm not interested in defending myself against those that know nothing about me. If someone feels I'm an ass, I'm fine with that. There is a quote on my user page, it has been there a very long time. It is by DGG, someone who was a mentor to me early on. It is worth reading, and may shed some light. Otherwise, it probably isn't good to highjack this thread with unrelated banter.

MMAR · Unread post by **MMAR** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Dennis Brown wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
MMAR wrote:...

Greetings Dennis Thanks for finally raising the courage to post, since you've been lurking for a while now, for reasons I suspect I accurately outlined elsewhere (thread locked, sorry) viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6810

...
I have flushed that topic of the trolling and backhanded sass, and have unlocked it, since it mentions Dennis a lot, has now been invoked in this topic, and Dennis has the right of reply.
I appreciate, I had not seen that thread. Real life keeps me busy, so I haven't seen 99% of the site. Full time job, new business, middle of an ugly divorce, I have plenty enough going on. I think I would probably pass on replying there. Everyone has a right to their opinion. I do read some things here, which is how I got the idea to start the article on Susan Brown (professor) . I've started a couple of article that way, always giving credit (see first edit) where it is due. In that respect, I've found the site useful. There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize Wikipedia, and I usually do it there, online, and I even participate in getting real change, so I do more than give it lip service. What I'm not interested in defending myself against those that know nothing about me. If someone feels I'm an ass, I'm fine with that. There is a quote on my user page, it has been there a very long time. It is by DGG, someone who was a mentor to me early on. It is worth reading, and may shed some light. Otherwise, it probably isn't good to highjack this thread with unrelated banter.

Well, there we go. I told everyone you'd not be up for defending your actions here, and what a surprise, it's true. I knew enough about you that you'd obviously decline this opportunity to defend yourself in an environment you can't control. And although you claim you rarely read, I think my theory that you only registered, and only continue to come back, to keep a close eye on threads like viewtopic.php?p=151975 so that you might alter your on Wikipedia conduct to make you look like less of an ass, holds true. Although I don't think 'being an ass' is even a strong enough description for your conduct in that case. You're basically putting Brad through some kind of torture ritual, as punishment for baiting Malik. Not nice. Not nice at all. I hope for your sake that he isn't like you, and his user name isn't is real name, given some to the things that have been said about him on Wikipedia.

eppur si muove · Unread post by **eppur si muove** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:16 pm

MMAR wrote:
Dennis Brown wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
MMAR wrote:...

Greetings Dennis Thanks for finally raising the courage to post, since you've been lurking for a while now, for reasons I suspect I accurately outlined elsewhere (thread locked, sorry) viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6810

...
I have flushed that topic of the trolling and backhanded sass, and have unlocked it, since it mentions Dennis a lot, has now been invoked in this topic, and Dennis has the right of reply.
I appreciate, I had not seen that thread. Real life keeps me busy, so I haven't seen 99% of the site. Full time job, new business, middle of an ugly divorce, I have plenty enough going on. I think I would probably pass on replying there. Everyone has a right to their opinion. I do read some things here, which is how I got the idea to start the article on Susan Brown (professor) . I've started a couple of article that way, always giving credit (see first edit) where it is due. In that respect, I've found the site useful. There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize Wikipedia, and I usually do it there, online, and I even participate in getting real change, so I do more than give it lip service. What I'm not interested in defending myself against those that know nothing about me. If someone feels I'm an ass, I'm fine with that. There is a quote on my user page, it has been there a very long time. It is by DGG, someone who was a mentor to me early on. It is worth reading, and may shed some light. Otherwise, it probably isn't good to highjack this thread with unrelated banter.
Well, there we go. I told everyone you'd not be up for defending your actions here, and what a surprise, it's true. I knew enough about you that you'd obviously decline this opportunity to defend yourself in an environment you can't control. And although you claim you rarely read, I think my theory that you only registered, and only continue to come back, to keep a close eye on threads like viewtopic.php?p=151975 so that you might alter your on Wikipedia conduct to make you look like less of an ass, holds true. Although I don't think 'being an ass' is even a strong enough description for your conduct in that case. You're basically putting Brad through some kind of torture ritual, as punishment for baiting Malik. Not nice. Not nice at all. I hope for your sake that he isn't like you, and his user name isn't is real name, given some to the things that have been said about him on Wikipedia.

He's listed a number of things that most people would regard as higher priority than replying to you. Personally I would regard his watching his twentieth favourite current TV programme as higher priority than replying to you.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:33 pm

Dennis Brown wrote:A page on my "adventures" would be rather bland reading, I'm afraid.

unwanted · Unread post by **unwanted** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:10 am

Dennis Brown wrote:... so I ramped it up with a personal attack and no one seemed to mind, proving the bias against Eric (2nd time I've done that).

Proving a bias against Eric? Only from the perspective of someone that believes that content creation forgives all misbehaviour. The only reason I never blocked you for crap like that was because I knew in advance that the block would persist for milliseconds at best.

Dennis Brown · Unread post by **Dennis Brown** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:35 am

unwanted wrote:
Dennis Brown wrote:... so I ramped it up with a personal attack and no one seemed to mind, proving the bias against Eric (2nd time I've done that).
Proving a bias against Eric? Only from the perspective of someone that believes that content creation forgives all misbehaviour. The only reason I never blocked you for crap like that was because I knew in advance that the block would persist for milliseconds at best.

If your first reaction is to instantly block someone (anyone) for a singular, isolated uncivil/NPA comment, then the problem isn't the person making the comment. The block button is easier than dialog, but seldom as effective.

unwanted · Unread post by **unwanted** » Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:44 am

Dennis Brown wrote:
unwanted wrote:
Dennis Brown wrote:... so I ramped it up with a personal attack and no one seemed to mind, proving the bias against Eric (2nd time I've done that).
Proving a bias against Eric? Only from the perspective of someone that believes that content creation forgives all misbehaviour. The only reason I never blocked you for crap like that was because I knew in advance that the block would persist for milliseconds at best.
If your first reaction is to instantly block someone (anyone) for a singular, isolated uncivil/NPA comment, then the problem isn't the person making the comment. The block button is easier than dialog, but seldom as effective.

Why on earth would you consider this instance of supporting a disruptive editor to be "singular"? I would think "chronic" would be a more accurate description. But yes, you've illustrated the problem: most people would say "Dennis Brown only used naughty words once, so that didn't merit a block", and few would look at the situation more deeply and say "Dennis Brown supports disruptive editors and prolongs conflicts, generally making it more difficult for productive editors to edit".