Another casualty of the toxic environment of Wikipedia

[Kumioko]

Yet another admin retired and turned in the tools. In this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=600697363&oldid=600529578 (T-H-L)User:Xavexgoem (T-C-L) asked for the tools to be removed and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xavexgoem (T-H-L) they stated how much they hate it in Wikipedia and restricted their user page. Although I am not particularly familiar with this admin and resignations aren't unusual, it does seem like the pace has been picking up with those who are either just leaving or resigning.

[enwikibadscience]

Yet another admin retired and turned in the tools. In this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=600697363&oldid=600529578 (T-H-L)User:Xavexgoem (T-C-L) asked for the tools to be removed and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xavexgoem (T-H-L) they stated how much they hate it in Wikipedia and restricted their user page. Although I am not particularly familiar with this admin and resignations aren't unusual, it does seem like the pace has been picking up with those who are either just leaving or resigning.

Xavexgoem (talk | contribs)
(I actually hate it here.)
Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
−
Hi! I'm an occasional admin, mediator, editor, and reader.
+
{{retired}}

Oh.

[EricBarbour]

Xavexgoem wasn't a major abuser or power-seeker, so I haven't written him up for the book wiki. He did a good job of covering up his real identity, spent/wasted a lot of time on the Mediation system, and didn't run around blocking people or deleting things for "jollies". Anyone willing to fight with Binksternet and Dingley can't be all bad, eh?

[Captain Occam]

What I remember Xavexgoem for is his trying to act as a mediator during the race and intelligence mediation in 2009 and 2010, after the previous mediator Reubzz had been driven off Wikipedia while the mediation was open. Xavexgoem eventually gave up as mediator, after which his position was filled by Ludwigs2. That doesn't necessarily indicate a shortcoming on Xavexgoem's part, though; Ludwigs2 is one of the only mediators who I can imagine not giving up in that situation.

[Triptych]

I saw where the resigning administrator gave us the clue of "I hate it here" in one of his or her last actions, however I wish he or she would've have given an explanation what brought him or her to that point. Instead he or she just closed up his or her talk and userpages.

[Captain Occam]

I saw where the resigning administrator gave us the clue of "I hate it here" in one of his or her last actions, however I wish he or she would've have given an explanation what brought him or her to that point. Instead he or she just closed up his or her talk and userpages.

If he still has Wikipedia e-mail enabled, someone could try contacting him and inviting him to this forum. I'm curious to know more details also.

[Randy from Boise]

What I remember Xavexgoem for is his trying to act as a mediator during the race and intelligence mediation in 2009 and 2010, after the previous mediator Reubzz had been driven off Wikipedia while the mediation was open. Xavexgoem eventually gave up as mediator, after which his position was filled by Ludwigs2. That doesn't necessarily indicate a shortcoming on Xavexgoem's part, though; Ludwigs2 is one of the only mediators who I can imagine not giving up in that situation.

Myself, I can't imagine Ludwigs2 as a mediator of anything, unless it's a discussion between two nutters who think they're Napoleon as to who has a more solid claim on the French throne...

RfB

[Poetlister]

Myself, I can't imagine Ludwigs2 as a mediator of anything, unless it's a discussion between two nutters who think they're Napoleon as to who has a more solid claim on the French throne...

RfB

Sounds like he's ideal for quite a lot of the disputes you get on Wikipedia.

[Captain Occam]

Myself, I can't imagine Ludwigs2 as a mediator of anything, unless it's a discussion between two nutters who think they're Napoleon as to who has a more solid claim on the French throne...

RfB

Sounds like he's ideal for quite a lot of the disputes you get on Wikipedia.

He's incredibly hard-headed, but for the race and intelligence mediation, that's exactly what we needed. None of the other people who tried to mediate it had the determination to make us all shut up and listen to one another. Something he's said, which I agree with, is that if he'd had admin powers during the mediation, there wouldn't have needed to be a race and intelligence arbitration case.

[SB_Johnny]

I saw where the resigning administrator gave us the clue of "I hate it here" in one of his or her last actions, however I wish he or she would've have given an explanation what brought him or her to that point. Instead he or she just closed up his or her talk and userpages.

Just a theory based on the big gap in time between his last active period and this one: he had decided he'd had enough, came back to give it a whirl again and see if he could recapture that old WP spirit, only to remember why he left before and decided not to repeat the experiment.

[Kumioko]

There are three kinds of people. Those who learn from reading, those who learn from observation, and those who still have to touch the electric fence to get the message.

[Jim]

There are three kinds of people. Those who learn from reading, those who learn from observation, and those who still have to touch the electric fence to get the message.

Nah - you missed the ones who become strangely addicted to, and dependent upon, the "buzz" they get from licking the fence.

[Hersch]

Xavexgoem wasn't a major abuser or power-seeker, so I haven't written him up for the book wiki. He did a good job of covering up his real identity, spent/wasted a lot of time on the Mediation system, and didn't run around blocking people or deleting things for "jollies". Anyone willing to fight with Binksternet and Dingley can't be all bad, eh?

Interesting. And after having his block reduced to one month, Binksternet says:

The feared result of me being "emboldened" is not at all the case, I can assure you. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

...which was clearly a bit of prevarication on his part, since he is still as much of DB as ever.

[snowskarlet]

This has now shown up on Jimmy Wales talkpage.

"I actually hate it here." said yet another Wikipedian, administrator who started editing Wikipedia in 2007. He said: "I actually hate it here." and retired. So, Jimbo, I wonder if you're concerned at all that sooner or later toxic editing environment and bullies would take over the site you have worked so hard on?71.202.123.2 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo's reply, after obviously swallowing a huge swath of "happy pills":

As a recipient of plenty of it myself, yes, of course I do. At the same time, it is important to understand that there are huge swathes of Wikipedia editing which take place in a lovely and congenial atmosphere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This reminds me of a certain song:
this is not my lovely and congenial atmosphere,
where are these huge swaths of blissful Wikipedia editors
this cannot certainly be that happy place...

Oh good lord a duck!

[Hersch]

This has now shown up on Jimmy Wales talkpage.

"I actually hate it here." said yet another Wikipedian, administrator who started editing Wikipedia in 2007. He said: "I actually hate it here." and retired. So, Jimbo, I wonder if you're concerned at all that sooner or later toxic editing environment and bullies would take over the site you have worked so hard on?71.202.123.2 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this who I think it is?

[EricBarbour]

As a recipient of plenty of it myself, yes, of course I do. At the same time, it is important to understand that there are huge swathes of Wikipedia editing which take place in a lovely and congenial atmosphere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The world would be a happier place.......if someone punched Jimbo in the nose, every time he posted a dose of this bullshit.

[Silent Editor]

As a recipient of plenty of it myself, yes, of course I do. At the same time, it is important to understand that there are huge swathes of Wikipedia editing which take place in a lovely and congenial atmosphere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder which swathes he has in mind? I have encountered only swathes of bitter fighting and swathes of tumbleweeds.

[Malleus]

As a recipient of plenty of it myself, yes, of course I do. At the same time, it is important to understand that there are huge swathes of Wikipedia editing which take place in a lovely and congenial atmosphere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder which swathes he has in mind? I have encountered only swathes of bitter fighting and swathes of tumbleweeds.

You have to bear in mind that Jimbo rarely edits articles himself, so he's not exactly speaking from experience.

[everyking]

As a recipient of plenty of it myself, yes, of course I do. At the same time, it is important to understand that there are huge swathes of Wikipedia editing which take place in a lovely and congenial atmosphere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The world would be a happier place.......if someone punched Jimbo in the nose, every time he posted a dose of this bullshit.

Once upon a time, Jimbo did more than his fair share to create a toxic atmosphere on Wikipedia. I remember how he used to swoop down out of nowhere with ill-advised bans (after someone whispered in his ear), how he used to darkly threaten a crackdown on "trolls", how he called me a "troll enabler" for speaking up for the marginalized editors he was so keen to have purged. His consistent tendency to side with bullies against ordinary contributors was a key factor in causing the editing environment to become so toxic, and thereby causing participation to languish in recent years. Those of us who have worked so hard for so long on Wikipedia can only be nauseated by this man who undermines our work, while contributing nothing more than platitudes, and then tries to take credit for whatever he hasn't ruined.

One can only marvel at his references to "a lovely and congenial atmosphere"; to the extent that it exists, it exists in spite of Jimbo.

[TungstenCarbide]

Once upon a time, Jimbo did more than his fair share to create a toxic atmosphere on Wikipedia. I remember how he used to swoop down out of nowhere with ill-advised bans (after someone whispered in his ear), how he used to darkly threaten a crackdown on "trolls", how he called me a "troll enabler" for speaking up for the marginalized editors he was so keen to have purged. His consistent tendency to side with bullies against ordinary contributors was a key factor in causing the editing environment to become so toxic, and thereby causing participation to languish in recent years. Those of us who have worked so hard for so long on Wikipedia can only be nauseated by this man who undermines our work, while contributing nothing more than platitudes, and then tries to take credit for whatever he hasn't ruined.

One can only marvel at his references to "a lovely and congenial atmosphere"; to the extent that it exists, it exists in spite of Jimbo.

Oh, it goes way back- there was a time Jimbo had no problem with people picking on Sanger. It wasn't until after he lost real control of the organization and couldn't easily ban people like Giano that 'civility' caught his attention.

You are right, Everyking, sycophants 'whispering in his ear' was how Wikipedia was run for a time, to the extent Jimbo actually managed.

[The Adversary]

This has now shown up on Jimmy Wales talkpage.

"I actually hate it here." said yet another Wikipedian, administrator who started editing Wikipedia in 2007. He said: "I actually hate it here." and retired. So, Jimbo, I wonder if you're concerned at all that sooner or later toxic editing environment and bullies would take over the site you have worked so hard on?71.202.123.2 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this who I think it is?

Yes, it is.

And since that IP has been blocked....she has already found another one.....

[snowskarlet]

As a recipient of plenty of it myself, yes, of course I do. At the same time, it is important to understand that there are huge swathes of Wikipedia editing which take place in a lovely and congenial atmosphere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder which swathes he has in mind? I have encountered only swathes of bitter fighting and swathes of tumbleweeds.

This has to be a misuse of categories. Surely he meant swarms.

[eppur si muove]

This has now shown up on Jimmy Wales talkpage.

"I actually hate it here." said yet another Wikipedian, administrator who started editing Wikipedia in 2007. He said: "I actually hate it here." and retired. So, Jimbo, I wonder if you're concerned at all that sooner or later toxic editing environment and bullies would take over the site you have worked so hard on?71.202.123.2 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this who I think it is?

Yes, it is.

And since that IP has been blocked....

And a sanctimonious excuse for a block it is.

16:53, 26 March 2014 Legoktm (talk | contribs) changed block settings for 71.202.123.2 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of 72 hours (Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia)

She may not now be there to build an encyclopedia, but how many of her photos are they using? Will Legoktm remove them all as unconstructive?

[neved]

This has now shown up on Jimmy Wales talkpage.

"I actually hate it here." said yet another Wikipedian, administrator who started editing Wikipedia in 2007. He said: "I actually hate it here." and retired. So, Jimbo, I wonder if you're concerned at all that sooner or later toxic editing environment and bullies would take over the site you have worked so hard on?71.202.123.2 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this who I think it is?

Yes, it is.

And since that IP has been blocked....

And a sanctimonious excuse for a block it is.

16:53, 26 March 2014 Legoktm (talk | contribs) changed block settings for 71.202.123.2 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of 72 hours (Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia)

She may not now be there to build an encyclopedia, but how many of her photos are they using? Will Legoktm remove them all as unconstructive?

Everybody sees building encyclopedia differently. Some add content, some impose blocks, some compiling RFC/U full of dirty lies and even dirtier half-truths, and some try to make the environment, in which encyclopedia is building, just a little bit less toxic, which of course is all but impossible with such bullying idiots arbitrators as David Fuchs (no Legoktm) who not only blocks a dynamic IP indefinitely, but also blocks IP's email access. I mean why to bother to block IP's email access? No IP has email access anyway.
It is hard enough to fight bullies, but it is even harder to fight stupid bullies.

[Kelly Martin]

As a recipient of plenty of it myself, yes, of course I do. At the same time, it is important to understand that there are huge swathes of Wikipedia editing which take place in a lovely and congenial atmosphere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder which swathes he has in mind? I have encountered only swathes of bitter fighting and swathes of tumbleweeds.

You have to bear in mind that Jimbo rarely edits articles himself, so he's not exactly speaking from experience.

And even when he does anybody who disagrees with his edit had better do so with absolute civility or his complaints will be deleted from his talk page by one of the hundreds of minions who watch it, before Jimbo ever even sees it. And you know Jimbo never checks article talk pages.

[Malleus]

As a recipient of plenty of it myself, yes, of course I do. At the same time, it is important to understand that there are huge swathes of Wikipedia editing which take place in a lovely and congenial atmosphere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder which swathes he has in mind? I have encountered only swathes of bitter fighting and swathes of tumbleweeds.

You have to bear in mind that Jimbo rarely edits articles himself, so he's not exactly speaking from experience.

And even when he does anybody who disagrees with his edit had better do so with absolute civility or his complaints will be deleted from his talk page by one of the hundreds of minions who watch it, before Jimbo ever even sees it. And you know Jimbo never checks article talk pages.

Thousands actually, 3066 when I just checked. Ridiculous really.

[Kumioko]

He does occassionally glance at the history of his talk page though to see what's been deleted by said "minons". I would also note that a large number of that 3066 are no longer with the project. Its still a staggering number....one of the most watched pages on the entire project.

[everyking]

He does occassionally glance at the history of his talk page though to see what's been deleted by said "minons". I would also note that a large number of that 3066 are no longer with the project. Its still a staggering number....one of the most watched pages on the entire project.

Well, don't assume that everyone who has the talk page on his or her watchlist is someone who's going to want to delete criticism or whatever. I keep an eye on it myself, partly for entertainment value and partly to keep myself apprised of issues which sometimes first come to my attention because someone posts about them there.

[The Adversary]

This has now shown up on Jimmy Wales talkpage.

"I actually hate it here." said yet another Wikipedian, administrator who started editing Wikipedia in 2007. He said: "I actually hate it here." and retired. So, Jimbo, I wonder if you're concerned at all that sooner or later toxic editing environment and bullies would take over the site you have worked so hard on?71.202.123.2 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this who I think it is?

Yes, it is.

And since that IP has been blocked....she has already found another one.....

Did I say "found another one"?
Sniff, sob,

Another "bullying idiot arbitrator" (to quote an earlier post) has outed himself by blocking this pure, innocent IP who only had the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.
The best, I tell you!

But wait!
She found another.....

Clever girl!
Do....not.....give...up...
Ever.

[EricBarbour]

[snowskarlet]

He does occassionally glance at the history of his talk page though to see what's been deleted by said "minons". I would also note that a large number of that 3066 are no longer with the project. Its still a staggering number....one of the most watched pages on the entire project.

Well, don't assume that everyone who has the talk page on his or her watchlist is someone who's going to want to delete criticism or whatever. I keep an eye on it myself, partly for entertainment value and partly to keep myself apprised of issues which sometimes first come to my attention because someone posts about them there.

As do I. His page is on my watchlist because I enjoy reading the tabloid aspects of Wikipedia. I would be clueless regarding the real Wikipedia otherwise. I am not a fan. Neither am I an activist to affirm or destruct his talk page content.

[neved]

Another "bullying idiot arbitrator" (to quote an earlier post) has outed himself by blocking this pure, innocent IP who only had the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.
The best, I tell you!

Well, I did explain why I called that admin "bullying idiot arbitrator", but sometimes haters are so much blinded by their hate that they simply incapable of seeing the oblivious. Also your post is a great demonstration of what "half -truth" is.

So here's one more time:
I called that admin "bullying idiot arbitrator" not because he blocked the IP, but because he blocked a dynamic IP indefinitely and because he revoked unexciting email access.

Everybody has different opinions on what is best for Wikipedia. I think that trying to make Wikipedia more humane, kinder, and more sane place is a noble task, which is probably all, but impossible to achieve because many Wikipedians experience the psychic pleasures of bullying, and it is what keep them going, and Wikipedia will probably die if it will ban its bullies.

[neved]

Another "bullying idiot arbitrator" (to quote an earlier post) has outed himself by blocking this pure, innocent IP who only had the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.
The best, I tell you!

Well, I did explain why I called that admin "bullying idiot arbitrator", but sometimes haters are so much blinded by their hate that they simply incapable of seeing the oblivious. Also your post is a great demonstration of what "half -truth" is.

So here's one more time:
I called that admin "bullying idiot arbitrator" not because he blocked the IP, but because he blocked a dynamic IP indefinitely and because he revoked unexciting email access.

Everybody has different opinions on what is best for Wikipedia. I think that trying to make Wikipedia more humane, kinder, and more sane place is a noble task, which is probably all, but impossible to achieve because many Wikipedians experience the psychic pleasures of bullying, and it is what keep them going, and Wikipedia will probably die if it will ban its bullies.

And I missed on it, but actually there are some who agree with my assessment of the block and the admin who imposed it.

Hi,

I've lowered the block on 71.202.123.2 to 72 hours, as that's a dynamic IP which really shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. Legoktm (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record "The Giano Problem and the Site's Seedy Underside" there is nothing seedy about me! What I say I have the guts to say on Wikipedia. Which is more than can be said for the likes of you. You typify all that is wrong with this project - pontificate on site and stick a stiletto in the back elsewhere with lies and falsehoods in places where your victims have no redress because you are too sly to even tell them of your nasty little posts. I feel sorry for inept men who have to slink and slide through the grass and try to garner support from similar types, doubtless to be big on Wikipedia because you are so insignificant elsewhere. I pity you. Man up or grow up. Giano (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

[EricBarbour]

Just for the record "The Giano Problem and the Site's Seedy Underside" there is nothing seedy about me! What I say I have the guts to say on Wikipedia. Which is more than can be said for the likes of you. You typify all that is wrong with this project - pontificate on site and stick a stiletto in the back elsewhere with lies and falsehoods in places where your victims have no redress because you are too sly to even tell them of your nasty little posts. I feel sorry for inept men who have to slink and slide through the grass and try to garner support from similar types, doubtless to be big on Wikipedia because you are so insignificant elsewhere. I pity you. Man up or grow up. Giano (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It continues to amaze me that they haven't forced him out yet.

Perhaps I should start a thread to discuss content writers that Wikipedia owes a great debt to, yet who never get any recognition. Ran across a very obscure one today.

[Kumioko]

You should, Wikipedia has a long history of disrespecting and abusing editors and its disgraceful.

[EricBarbour]

You should, Wikipedia has a long history of disrespecting and abusing editors and its disgraceful.

Done. Find more and add them. It can be used to shame administrators who don't do content work, or other cranks.

[everyking]

Just for the record "The Giano Problem and the Site's Seedy Underside" there is nothing seedy about me! What I say I have the guts to say on Wikipedia. Which is more than can be said for the likes of you. You typify all that is wrong with this project - pontificate on site and stick a stiletto in the back elsewhere with lies and falsehoods in places where your victims have no redress because you are too sly to even tell them of your nasty little posts. I feel sorry for inept men who have to slink and slide through the grass and try to garner support from similar types, doubtless to be big on Wikipedia because you are so insignificant elsewhere. I pity you. Man up or grow up. Giano (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It continues to amaze me that they haven't forced him out yet.

Perhaps I should start a thread to discuss content writers that Wikipedia owes a great debt to, yet who never get any recognition. Ran across a very obscure one today.

"Recognition" normally comes in the form of harassment, blocks and bans. It is indeed impressive that Giano is still around. One would have expected a site ban and the collateral banning of a dozen other editors on questionable claims of sockpuppetry long before now, along with an aggressive application of damnatio memoriae. However, he seems popular in some circles and I think that has helped him survive.

[Giano]

Sorry, I don't know how to do the quote thing, but this is intended as a reply to everyking (Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:38 pm):

I'm not really that popular that all ended years ago - it's a new and much younger generation now. The reason I have 'survived' so long is that, beyond honesty and transparency on the site, I have no great single controversial cause or crusade. If you tell only the truth, and always have proof of that truth, no one can touch you. I'm not political or controversial in my content editing so that's pretty blameless. I just ruffle feathers every now and again when someone is being particularly daft or pompous amongst the self-appointed ruling class. At times, I get it wrong and I make myself look daft, and wonder why have I done that, but we all make mistakes. Perhaps making myself look an idiot is part of my charm.

I've been around a long time, and things have improved since the time Kelly Martin (at the height of her powers) popped up on my talk page and threatened to block me for suggesting that Admis should write content, the likes of Fred Bauder used to dream of my downfall, and I was banned for 'hate speech' for questioning the net benefit of pedophiles on the site.

So, overall, I think I have helped to make a small improvement, and I'm on the right track. So perhaps that's why there's been no site banning and damnatio memoriae...yet.

[TungstenCarbide]

... I've been around a long time, and things have improved since the time Kelly Martin (at the height of her powers) popped up on my talk page and threatened to block me for suggesting that Admis should write content, the likes of Fred Bauder used to dream of my downfall, and I was banned for 'hate speech' for questioning the net benefit of pedophiles on the site ...

I remember that, vividly. It sounds unbelievable in hindsight- sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. On the other hand, there are parts of wikipedia that have grown worse since then; more OCD bot runners, WMF morons running amok, bloated bureaucracy and a risk averse attitude toward changes to improve the project...

[EricBarbour]

I've been around a long time, and things have improved since the time Kelly Martin (at the height of her powers) popped up on my talk page and threatened to block me for suggesting that Admis should write content, the likes of Fred Bauder used to dream of my downfall, and I was banned for 'hate speech' for questioning the net benefit of pedophiles on the site.

So, overall, I think I have helped to make a small improvement, and I'm on the right track. So perhaps that's why there's been no site banning and damnatio memoriae...yet.

With due respect, sir, a major reason is probably not your content work. You have supporters, and they have helped to stop repeated attempts to purge you. Without an adequate number of "fans" on Wikipedia, anyone performing content work is doomed to fail, unless it is either very obscure information that Wikipedia's "bad cops" don't care about, or it is "gnoming" of minor details. And at all times, keep one's head down and be silent about the abusive and insane internal culture. It is not an "encyclopedia", it is a social network posing as one.

You know what Wikipedia reminds me of? This story. Wikipedia is a large and corrupt government, with a large, corrupt and semi-competent police department. It has good cops and it has bad cops, and the bureaucracy protects them all as if they were "equal".

[Zoloft]

Welcome to Giano, and we hope to hear from you on at least a semi-regular basis.

[HRIP7]

Sorry, I don't know how to do the quote thing, but this is intended as a reply to everyking (Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:38 pm):

I'm not really that popular that all ended years ago - it's a new and much younger generation now. The reason I have 'survived' so long is that, beyond honesty and transparency on the site, I have no great single controversial cause or crusade. If you tell only the truth, and always have proof of that truth, no one can touch you. I'm not political or controversial in my content editing so that's pretty blameless. I just ruffle feathers every now and again when someone is being particularly daft or pompous amongst the self-appointed ruling class. At times, I get it wrong and I make myself look daft, and wonder why have I done that, but we all make mistakes. Perhaps making myself look an idiot is part of my charm.

I've been around a long time, and things have improved since the time Kelly Martin (at the height of her powers) popped up on my talk page and threatened to block me for suggesting that Admis should write content, the likes of Fred Bauder used to dream of my downfall, and I was banned for 'hate speech' for questioning the net benefit of pedophiles on the site.

So, overall, I think I have helped to make a small improvement, and I'm on the right track. So perhaps that's why there's been no site banning and damnatio memoriae...yet.

Welcome, Giano.

(If you want to quote the post you're replying to, just click the Quote icon top right of that post.)

[everyking]

I've been around a long time, and things have improved since the time Kelly Martin (at the height of her powers) popped up on my talk page and threatened to block me for suggesting that Admis should write content, the likes of Fred Bauder used to dream of my downfall, and I was banned for 'hate speech' for questioning the net benefit of pedophiles on the site.

So, overall, I think I have helped to make a small improvement, and I'm on the right track. So perhaps that's why there's been no site banning and damnatio memoriae...yet.

With due respect, sir, a major reason is probably not your content work. You have supporters, and they have helped to stop repeated attempts to purge you. Without an adequate number of "fans" on Wikipedia, anyone performing content work is doomed to fail, unless it is either very obscure information that Wikipedia's "bad cops" don't care about, or it is "gnoming" of minor details. And at all times, keep one's head down and be silent about the abusive and insane internal culture. It is not an "encyclopedia", it is a social network posing as one.

You know what Wikipedia reminds me of? This story. Wikipedia is a large and corrupt government, with a large, corrupt and semi-competent police department. It has good cops and it has bad cops, and the bureaucracy protects them all as if they were "equal".

I suspect this assessment is a lot closer to the truth, but I'm very glad to see Giano here.

[Bottled_Spider]

I'm not really that popular that all ended years ago....

If that were true, Giano, you would have ended years ago. The fact is, as Eric said, you seem to enjoy the protection of a significant number of Wikipedia's more able social networkers. Good for you, I say. It provides those of us who are into that sort of thing with some fine entertainment. Thanks!

I've been around a long time, and things have improved since the time Kelly Martin (at the height of her powers) popped up on my talk page and threatened to block me for suggesting that Admis should write content....

Heh! That's what I'm talking about!

[Kelly Martin]

I've been around a long time, and things have improved since the time Kelly Martin (at the height of her powers) popped up on my talk page and threatened to block me for suggesting that Admis should write content

Which is not what happened, and you know it. I fell for your trolling, and lost the game, but let's not forget that's what you were doing there. It was a brilliantly executed takeout move, on par with the one I used to take out Geogre a couple years later.

[neved]

I've been around a long time, and things have improved since the time Kelly Martin (at the height of her powers) popped up on my talk page and threatened to block me for suggesting that Admis should write content

Which is not what happened, and you know it. I fell for your trolling, and lost the game, but let's not forget that's what you were doing there. It was a brilliantly executed takeout move, on par with the one I used to take out Geogre a couple years later.

It could make a very interesting exercise. I mean you start a separate thread and tell your part of the story, and Giano responds, and tells the same story from his perspective.

[neved]

Some quotes from the thread at Jimbo's talk http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... it_here.22
by North8000 (T-C-L)

Well, the bad people are certainly driving the good people away. The underlying problem is that what worked when Wikipedia new doesn't work now......what enabled building it when it was new back then now enables destructive sociopaths, mob violence, and a random and destructive system of "policing".

by Carrite (T-C-L)

Allow me to chime in "In Defense of Bullies." Since Wikipedia is open for any schmoe to jump in and edit anonymously, without any registration or real life identification to make banning for COI even possible, there is always going to be conflict over content. It's a fact of life — involved, aggressive, opinionated people are going to attempt to power through their views, chasing off the meek in the process.

by K6ka (T-C-L)

Indeed, while a wiki aims towards a peaceful, harmonious atmosphere to function, that's about as realistic as a child begging his parents for vegetables after he sampled some of McDonalds human feedlot food.

by Pine (T-C-L)

I too wonder if this place will eventually mostly be run by bots, COI editors, and a few grumpy regulars.

by Epipelagic (T-C-L)

The idea that the English Wikipedia can be made a friendly and engaging place for good-faith editors is ridiculous, and no way possible while Wikipedia in under the heel of the current absurd and surreal admin system. Here hundreds of individual admins appointed for life have the freedom, like vigilantes, to emerge from the woodwork and arbitrarily demolish content builders at whim. Until Wikipedia can be brought under some measure of transparent central control and accountability, and until some measure of natural justice is seen to be in operation, Wikipedia will continue spiralling down it's present course.

[snowskarlet]

Some quotes from the thread at Jimbo's talk http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... it_here.22

by Pine (T-C-L)

I too wonder if this place will eventually mostly be run by bots, COI editors, and a few grumpy regulars.

Oh dear, I suppose this makes me a 'grumpy regular'.

I need to create an empty category named thusly and place myself in it. Redlink and all. Similar to: 'Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian' ...

[TungstenCarbide]

I've been around a long time, and things have improved since the time Kelly Martin (at the height of her powers) popped up on my talk page and threatened to block me for suggesting that Admis should write content

Which is not what happened, and you know it. I fell for your trolling, and lost the game, but let's not forget that's what you were doing there. It was a brilliantly executed takeout move, on par with the one I used to take out Geogre a couple years later.

See, that's part of the problem right there, Kelly. You and too many of your cohorts viewed Wikipedia like it was a Machiavellian game, thereby making it so, instead of spending your time editing and creating content. Please consider this from the point of view of editors who went to Wikipedia for all the right reasons, only to see the way the place was run and then leave in disgust, without a peep.

[Kelly Martin]

I've been around a long time, and things have improved since the time Kelly Martin (at the height of her powers) popped up on my talk page and threatened to block me for suggesting that Admis should write content

Which is not what happened, and you know it. I fell for your trolling, and lost the game, but let's not forget that's what you were doing there. It was a brilliantly executed takeout move, on par with the one I used to take out Geogre a couple years later.

See, that's part of the problem right there, Kelly. You and too many of your cohorts viewed Wikipedia like it was a Machiavellian game, thereby making it so, instead of spending your time editing and creating content. Please consider this from the point of view of editors who went to Wikipedia for all the right reasons, only to see the way the place was run and then leave in disgust, without a peep.

I realize now that it was a game, but I didn't see it as that when I was trying to do what I thought was the best thing for the encyclopedia (not yet having realized that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia). I didn't see it that way at the time, which is why I got kicked out when I did. I was never interested in amassing power for its own sake (whether or not you believe me).

I went to Wikipedia for "all the right reasons" too. The problem with people like Giano, quite frankly, is that they're playing the game just as much as they're being "content editors". Like me, Giano come for the content, but it was the game that kept him there, and it is the game that keeps him there now. Giano just figured out it was a game much earlier than I did.