"None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me."neved wrote:I do not consider banning to be a "house arrest". Banning is the beginning of freedom.
Wikipediots believe that banned editors are nopersons, the ones who are locked out, but they do not realize that rather they themselves are trapped inside that horrible 1984.
Still lying.AGK wrote:I can't answer that, as you are probably well aware.
You are more correct than you know. Young Mr. Kelly's "content work" was so bad, it was an embarrassment. It is favorable overall to Wikipedia that he did so little of it. He is a straight-up 100% pure Internet troll, so it should be no surprise he ended up on Arbcom. His only talents appear to be sucking up, backstabbing, and Wiki-lawyering.Mancunium wrote:I have also read your complacently stupid Talk Page, and your complacently stupid "Functus Officio" and "Arbitration and content" drivel.
You're bad at all your Wikipedia "jobs", Mr Anonymous Undergraduate, and I assume you are able to waste so much time on your inconsequential internet nonsense because you're otherwise unemployable. You're probably also the kind of lousy copy editor who copy edits to annoy, and I don't believe for one second your laughably pompous claim to have made "substantive contributions to articles in the field of politics, classics, and law."
Why should Peter Damian have to answer for your inconsistencies?AGK wrote:How do you reconcile this position with the other current thread about how I think policy is at best a rough reflection of current practice?Peter Damian wrote:This really appeals to my sense of the absurd. AGK says "The policy states that a talk page can only (emboldening added) be used by a banned user if they are pursuing an appeal". Right, the policy says that. But he hasn't questioned whether that policy is completely stupid or not. He is one of the second generation of Wikipedians who behave as if 'policy' had been brought down from Mount Sinai in tablets of stone.
So, if someone was banned for "outing" other Wikipedians, you'd contend that it would be okay for them to use their Talk page to continue "outing" other Wikipedians?Peter Damian wrote:If a user is confined to their talk page, they can't be disruptive in the sense they can go to other parts of Wikipedia. All they can do is say stuff which can only be read if people actively go to the page and read it. By stopping even that, you are cutting the other people off from information they might want to have.
Thanks for the information, Eric.EricBarbour wrote:Still lying.AGK wrote:I can't answer that, as you are probably well aware.
You are more correct than you know. Young Mr. Kelly's "content work" was so bad, it was an embarrassment. It is favorable overall to Wikipedia that he did so little of it. He is a straight-up 100% pure Internet troll, so it should be no surprise he ended up on Arbcom. His only talents appear to be sucking up, backstabbing, and Wiki-lawyering.Mancunium wrote:I have also read your complacently stupid Talk Page, and your complacently stupid "Functus Officio" and "Arbitration and content" drivel.
You're bad at all your Wikipedia "jobs", Mr Anonymous Undergraduate, and I assume you are able to waste so much time on your inconsequential internet nonsense because you're otherwise unemployable. You're probably also the kind of lousy copy editor who copy edits to annoy, and I don't believe for one second your laughably pompous claim to have made "substantive contributions to articles in the field of politics, classics, and law."
'It's never gonna happen'. The anthem of the free culture children.Bielle wrote:I think you see yourself (and others) as being able to speak again to your cause, to be heard by more people, to change minds and hearts. This is Wikipedia we are talking about. It won't happen. You will be defended by some, castigated by more, skinned alive yet again on the drama boards (where you can't fight back) and kicked out again. There is no shame in trying, but what an appalling waste of time and energy.
Absolutely. It would have the force and authority of something written on a talk page, i.e. very little. I don't have a problem with anonymous people slandering me on the internet, so long as it is clear to everyone that they are merely anonymous people slandering me on the internet. Why should I care. If the British Government, or the Daily Mail, say exactly the same thing, I do care a lot. That is because millions of people take British Government, or the Daily Mail, very seriously. (Rightly or wrongly). If some anonymous dick says something that has the full force and authority of a large institution behind it, I care. Am I making sense?thekohser wrote:So, if someone was banned for "outing" other Wikipedians, you'd contend that it would be okay for them to use their Talk page to continue "outing" other Wikipedians?Peter Damian wrote:If a user is confined to their talk page, they can't be disruptive in the sense they can go to other parts of Wikipedia. All they can do is say stuff which can only be read if people actively go to the page and read it. By stopping even that, you are cutting the other people off from information they might want to have.
Let's put this another way. If someone were banned for using Wikipedia to continuously libel the reputation of Bedward Uckner, a noted real-life author and specialist in medieval psychology, you would defend their right to continue to use their Talk page to pursue their anti-Uckner agenda? Or, would you be prepared to sue the Wikimedia Foundation for maintaining that page?
The Wikipedia history of AGK is rather well documentedEricBarbour wrote:Still lying.AGK wrote:I can't answer that, as you are probably well aware.
You are more correct than you know. Young Mr. Kelly's "content work" was so bad, it was an embarrassment. It is favorable overall to Wikipedia that he did so little of it. He is a straight-up 100% pure Internet troll, so it should be no surprise he ended up on Arbcom. His only talents appear to be sucking up, backstabbing, and Wiki-lawyering.Mancunium wrote:I have also read your complacently stupid Talk Page, and your complacently stupid "Functus Officio" and "Arbitration and content" drivel.
You're bad at all your Wikipedia "jobs", Mr Anonymous Undergraduate, and I assume you are able to waste so much time on your inconsequential internet nonsense because you're otherwise unemployable. You're probably also the kind of lousy copy editor who copy edits to annoy, and I don't believe for one second your laughably pompous claim to have made "substantive contributions to articles in the field of politics, classics, and law."
Really AGK is a kid of Wikipedia and they worth each other.December 27, 2006: adds himself to the standby list for CheckUser clerks. At the time, not granted.
December 29, 2006: requests to join the mediation committee. Denied.
December 31, 2006: requests OTRS access. Not granted.
January 9, 2007: requests CheckUser access. Denied.
January 16, 2007: attempts to gain access to the Bot Approvals Group. Denied.
February 9, 2007: requests adminship on the English Wikipedia. Not granted.
March 3, 2007: requests to join the Mediation Committee again. Denied.
March 6, 2007: requests to become an administrator at the Simple English Wikipedia. Denied, and he leaves that wiki soon afterward, indicating that he was editing there for the sole purpose of gaining adminship (though has since made some edits under his current username, AGK).
March 9, 2007: Adds self as CheckUser clerk, shortly after the process is made more open (previously, checkusers -- primarily Essjay -- added users themselves). I recall a conversation with Essjay before he left the site in which he told me that he did not wish for Anthony to become a clerk; this is of course hearsay, and Essjay can't back this up. However, Essjay privately, and to a lesser extent publicly, complained that many of the positions that Anthony/AGK applied for were positions that Essjay held, or positions under Essjay (i.e. CheckUser clerk), and that the requests seemed to him as a form of stalking.
April 4, 2007: requests OTRS access again; request withdrawn.
April 19, 2007: requests to become a coordinator of the Mediation Cabal via e-mail. Not granted.
April 27, 2007: requests adminship on the English Wikipedia for a second time. Granted this time; I voted Neutral.
May 18, 2007: requests to join the Mediation Committee for a third time. Granted; I was unable to register my opinion on his nomination before it closed.
May 23, 2007: becomes a VandalProof moderator.
May 24, 2007: Just a day later, removed as moderator by AmiDaniel, "due to complaints from a variety of sources".
July 24, 2007: requests OTRS access for a third time. Denied.
December 27, 2007: Named an Arbitration Committee Clerk (at the time, a trainee; since then he's been named a full clerk)
February 6, 2008: Named as an observer to the Working Group on ethnic and cultural edit wars.
February 11, 2008: requests OTRS access for a fourth time. Denied.
March 8, 2008: requests an account on the Foundation wiki. Request not yet acted upon.
AGK even admitted on March 5, 2007 that "I appeared power-hungry, and to an extent I was. Might I here point out that I have since eliminated all nominations from my mind - Adminship, etc.. - to concentrate on being permitted to formally mediate cases alongside a group of Wikipedians who I each hold in the highest respect, for one reason or another." The request to join MedCom was declined just hours later; he applied for adminship on the Simple English Wikipedia just a day afterward. I believe this speaks to AGK's hunger for power.
In response to Majorly and EVula, I have to admit that AGK has not abused these powers, though I feel that in some cases he's made poor judgments. As a fellow mediator (and a fairly unsuccess I don't feel comfortable judging his Mediation Committee actions, as a mediator emeritus, but I think AGK's handled some things rather poorly. For example, he was involved in a minor edit war with Daniel and I, regarding text on his userpage that was unquestionably copyrighted. He took offense that Daniel and I were involved, due to prior disputes we've had with him, and attacked us for that while acknowledging that we were right regarding the copyright status of the text. Moreover, he noted that he didn't have that great a grip on copyright issues, and "[had] not offered [himself] to OTRS for copyright queues". This is absolutely false; in July 2007, AGK's third OTRS request specifically notes that, at least initially "'I only wish to start helping out with permissions".
I feel that while he's a great contributor, he lacks the sensitivity to others to realize that some of his behavior can be extremely irritating, and in some cases can be interpreted as "wikistalking". Throughout Anthony/AGK's time on Wikipedia, he's seemed to follow in the footsteps of Essjay and Daniel. Both Essjay and Daniel have noted that AGK/Anthony has borrowed from their userpage design significantly; while it doesn't seem like the biggest concern, I can see where they could be concerned about confusion, and also how it could "weird them out".
More concerning, as noted above, is that many of the positions he's applied for were originally held by Essjay or Daniel. For example, in one of many coincidences, AGK first inquires about becoming a VandalProof moderator, just two days after Daniel becomes one. In early 2007, his requests to join the Mediation Committee, OTRS, CheckUser group, CheckUser clerk, and Bot Approvals Group were all presumably motivated by the fact that Essjay held each right. I wouldn't be worried about this, since it happened last year, except that it's still happening. Anthony asks for temporary Meta adminship less than four weeks after Daniel receives it for a different purpose -- another coincidence?
I guess to me, it's not a concern that AGK will do it wrong -- though he's had his troubles, I expect temporary adminship, to focus on MediaWiki messages only, is a task that is purely janitorial, and he should run into no trouble there. However, I find it troubling that it seems he treats these positions like trophies. I don't feel that encouraging this would be good for Wikimedia or for AGK, and I don't think that, given these concerns, the task he wishes to accomplish is that important that denying him adminship would adversely affect the Wikimedia mission
A friend of liars. 17:16, 2 March 2007 "Essjay works with Jimbo, so I'm sure he was appointed with Jimbo as informed as possible. In all honesty, this has been blown out of all proportion."neved wrote:Really AGK is a kid of Wikipedia and they worth each other.
I do care about X in regimes, and I don't care about X in Wikipedia. Substitute for X.Bielle wrote:I do care about it in regimes, and I don't care about it in Wikipedia.
"George W. Bush's rain of terror."Mancunium wrote:I have also read your complacently stupid Talk Page, and your complacently stupid "Functus Officio" and "Arbitration and content" drivel.
You're bad at all your Wikipedia "jobs", Mr Anonymous Undergraduate, and I assume you are able to waste so much time on your inconsequential internet nonsense because you're otherwise unemployable. You're probably also the kind of lousy copy editor who copy edits to annoy, and I don't believe for one second your laughably pompous claim to have made "substantive contributions to articles in the field of politics, classics, and law."
All of them. Hasten The Day!Peter Damian wrote:Which is the X which is OK?
But all awesomeness of the world is powerless against the wikipediot who has just indefinitely protected the medieval vindictiveness of Wikipeda. Albert Einstein was right when he said: "I fear the day technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." (read a generation of wikipediots).thekohser wrote:Comcast is awesome.Peter Damian wrote:One thing is for sure, there won't be any more posts from the IP:71.198.215.156 address for a while. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure.71.202.122.141 (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I am having a really hard time taking WP as seriously as you do. ". . .prevail against evil"? It is a only a web site, populated and principally governed, as is so often remarked upon here, by hormone laden, socially inept, barely literate teenage males (of all ages and sexes). Your struggle to get WP to behave the way you want it to do is hardly a parallel to Thomas's plea to his father to fight against encroaching death, except that the end result will be the same. Rail away; enjoy yourself. I will not be fighting against you, but neither will I join you.Peter Damian wrote:'It's never gonna happen'. The anthem of the free culture children.Bielle wrote:I think you see yourself (and others) as being able to speak again to your cause, to be heard by more people, to change minds and hearts. This is Wikipedia we are talking about. It won't happen. You will be defended by some, castigated by more, skinned alive yet again on the drama boards (where you can't fight back) and kicked out again. There is no shame in trying, but what an appalling waste of time and energy.
[edit] Are you saying the fight against evil is wrong because we cannot prevail against evil? But why would that make the fight wrong? I will never go gentle into that night.
Inhale the pure air of the truth, little Tony. It's good for you.Latest revision as of 15:11, 23 August 2013 (edit) (undo)
AGK (talk | contribs)
(off-wiki stuff probably isn't interesting to most people)
(Tag: VisualEditor)
From a guy whose simple wikipedia page was an exhaustive list of dubious claims about your offsite personal stuff, I find this change of heart ... disturbing.(off-wiki stuff probably isn't interesting to most people)
As almost ever, examination of a random Wikipedian reveals a broken person.neved wrote:But all awesomeness of the world is powerless against the wikipediot who has just indefinitely protected the medieval vindictiveness of Wikipeda. Albert Einstein was right when he said: "I fear the day technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." (read a generation of wikipediots).thekohser wrote:Comcast is awesome.Peter Damian wrote:One thing is for sure, there won't be any more posts from the IP:71.198.215.156 address for a while. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure.71.202.122.141 (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
What is it about people like you and Lord Inali of Tanasi, GDH (otherwise known as Orange Mike) that makes you assume titles of nobility, and carry on like medieval despots? Do you think people are impressed?"Sir Mark Arsten." You know, that does have a nice ring to it. "Mark Arsten" does sound like a knight's name. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
LOL, thanks. BTW, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on this controversy. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You even have a castle, I've noticed. As for that controversy, hmmm; I'll have to get back to you on that. I've seen Edgth around, via the Human sexuality article (which needs substantial fixing up), and, having looked through his edit history and on his talk page, I know what a WP:Edit warrior he is. Flyer22 (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the person who took that picture actually stopped by my talk page once, which was very cool. It turns out that there was a war reenactment going on that day. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I actually agree with you. Wikipedia is not important. It is only a website, except this website actively ruins lives, reputations and health of very real people both its editors and the subjects of its BLPs alike. Let's for example take its wikipediots. They have no girlfriends, no jobs, no lives, they have only Wikipedia. They spend every waking hour editing Wikipedia, and then, when they'll look back they'll realize that they were robbed of their youth, and the life itself, but it will be too late to change a thing. I am sure that one day Wikipedia will collapse as all totalitarian, idiotic regimes do, but it will be too late for hundreds of wikipediots.Bielle wrote:I am having a really hard time taking WP as seriously as you do. ". . .prevail against evil"? It is a only a web site, populated and principally governed, as is so often remarked upon here, by hormone laden, socially inept, barely literate teenage males (of all ages and sexes). Your struggle to get WP to behave the way you want it to do is hardly a parallel to Thomas's plea to his father to fight against encroaching death, except that the end result will be the same. Rail away; enjoy yourself. I will not be fighting against you, but neither will I join you.Peter Damian wrote:'It's never gonna happen'. The anthem of the free culture children.Bielle wrote:I think you see yourself (and others) as being able to speak again to your cause, to be heard by more people, to change minds and hearts. This is Wikipedia we are talking about. It won't happen. You will be defended by some, castigated by more, skinned alive yet again on the drama boards (where you can't fight back) and kicked out again. There is no shame in trying, but what an appalling waste of time and energy.
[edit] Are you saying the fight against evil is wrong because we cannot prevail against evil? But why would that make the fight wrong? I will never go gentle into that night.
My "It won't happen" is a description of what I believe will be the logical outcome. The Free Culture crowd's "It's never gonna happen" is their declaration of war; big difference.
Case in point Gareth E Kegg (T-C-L), the inventor of "women novelists", whose User Page once had this gem upon it:neved wrote:I actually agree with you. Wikipedia is not important. It is only a website, except this website actively ruins lives, reputations and health of very real people both its editors and the subjects of its BLPs alike. Let's for example take its wikipediots. They have no girlfriends, no jobs, no lives, they have only Wikipedia. They spend every waking hour editing Wikipedia, and then, when they'll look back they'll realize that they were robbed of their youth, and the life itself, but it will be too late to change a thing. I am sure that one day Wikipedia will collapse as all totalitarian, idiotic regimes do, but it will be too late for hundreds of wikipediots.
After I and others had a good time mocking this delusional claptrap on Reddit, he let it go: linkSome decades from now all those idealistic people who contributed to open software or Wikipedia will be in the same position as today's ageing jazz musicians. We'll help one per week through fund-raising on Reddit in order to feel good, even though on average that will be the equivalent of doing nothing.
Not trying to suggest anything about any of the specific particpants in this discussion but consider the possibility that that tail is trying to wag the dog to a certain extent here. This is being discussed at "that other site" right now... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
neved wrote:Now it is funny while one wikipediot protects the medieval vindictiveness of Wikipeda to prevent normal people from posting there almost immediately another wikipediot links to this very discussion on wikipediocracy. Looks like two idiots are better than one. Two idiots have successfully neutralized each other.
Not trying to suggest anything about any of the specific particpants in this discussion but consider the possibility that that tail is trying to wag the dog to a certain extent here. This is being discussed at "that other site" right now... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not 'only a website'.Bielle wrote: It is a only a web site
Tis n tisnt. It is only a website as far as participation is concern. It isn't only a website as far as being shat on is concerned.Peter Damian wrote:It's not 'only a website'.Bielle wrote: It is a only a web site
What I meant was, it is a site taken seriously by many people and used, rightly or wrongly for all kinds of teaching work.lilburne wrote:Tis n tisnt. It is only a website as far as participation is concern. It isn't only a website as far as being shat on is concerned.Peter Damian wrote:It's not 'only a website'.Bielle wrote: It is a only a web site
Would you say that child abuse is not OK, except on Wikipedia?Midsize Jake wrote:All of them. Hasten The Day!Peter Damian wrote:Which is the X which is OK?
Now, if you're the victim of these things, that's obviously not a good thing, and it would show a considerable lack of compassion to not care for the victim's feelings in this regard. But the crucial difference here is that you can always (and should) choose not to participate in Wikipedia, whereas with the abusive real-world government regime, not so much.
The analogy would make more sense if you used the correct one, namely to a religious cult. And as an added bonus, Ms. Bielle's response would seem marginally less insensitive, too.
This forum is, like WR before it, crawling with people who seriously, blindly believe that Wikipedia "can be saved" orPeter Damian wrote:This reflects a deep and bitter division between the old WR regulars who believed WP incapable of reform, and the 'Wikipedia reformers'. For the old guard, even talking about Wikipedia on Wikipedia Review was anathema, a bit like the IRA refusing to recognise courts in Northern Ireland. You simply didn't acknowledge its existence.
That was in 2007. Since then, Wikipedia has emerged as a force to be taken seriously - in public relations, in education in politics, advertising. I don't see how you can't take it seriously. And the fact you want to reform it doesn't mean you want to be part of the weird cult that runs it.
I squint and I see progress. We influence. We stir apprehension. People here are forced to face their 'facts' and watch them come unglued. Subtle changes, some of them. Others back at Wikipedia find out that failure is always an option. Some monsters get flushed out into the sun. Other creatures are dragged out kicking and screaming.EricBarbour wrote:This forum is, like WR before it, crawling with people who seriously, blindly believe that Wikipedia "can be saved" orPeter Damian wrote:This reflects a deep and bitter division between the old WR regulars who believed WP incapable of reform, and the 'Wikipedia reformers'. For the old guard, even talking about Wikipedia on Wikipedia Review was anathema, a bit like the IRA refusing to recognise courts in Northern Ireland. You simply didn't acknowledge its existence.
That was in 2007. Since then, Wikipedia has emerged as a force to be taken seriously - in public relations, in education in politics, advertising. I don't see how you can't take it seriously. And the fact you want to reform it doesn't mean you want to be part of the weird cult that runs it.
"must be saved". I keep telling them they are being foolish, and there is no hope for its future.
But because they put in hundreds or thousands of hours trying to "fix articles", they feel they have to "protect" their work.
I only wish more WR old-timers had more sway around here. Wikipediocracy is getting dysfunctional, just like WR
and for similar reasons. Even though Zoloft tries to keep lunatics like Poetlister and Morrow and Blissy out, there's
always replacements for them.
Wikipedia needs a complete revolution from the top down. The community-based anarchic "government system" needs to be replaced by an organization far stronger, more hands-on, and more responsible than the Wikimedia Foundation. There can be no meaning reform unless both the WMF and the Wikipedia "community consensus model of government" are replaced.EricBarbour wrote:This forum is, like WR before it, crawling with people who seriously, blindly believe that Wikipedia "can be saved" orPeter Damian wrote:This reflects a deep and bitter division between the old WR regulars who believed WP incapable of reform, and the 'Wikipedia reformers'. For the old guard, even talking about Wikipedia on Wikipedia Review was anathema, a bit like the IRA refusing to recognise courts in Northern Ireland. You simply didn't acknowledge its existence.
That was in 2007. Since then, Wikipedia has emerged as a force to be taken seriously - in public relations, in education in politics, advertising. I don't see how you can't take it seriously. And the fact you want to reform it doesn't mean you want to be part of the weird cult that runs it.
"must be saved". I keep telling them they are being foolish, and there is no hope for its future.
But because they put in hundreds or thousands of hours trying to "fix articles", they feel they have to "protect" their work.
I only wish more WR old-timers had more sway around here. Wikipediocracy is getting dysfunctional, just like WR
and for similar reasons. Even though Zoloft tries to keep lunatics like Poetlister and Morrow and Blissy out, there's
always replacements for them.
EricBarbour wrote: This forum is, like WR before it, crawling with people who seriously, blindly believe that Wikipedia "can be saved" or
"must be saved". I keep telling them they are being foolish, and there is no hope for its future.
But because they put in hundreds or thousands of hours trying to "fix articles", they feel they have to "protect" their work.
You must have spooked that lowlife Arbcom loser AGK, Vigilant.Vigilant wrote:From a guy whose simple wikipedia page was an exhaustive list of dubious claims about your offsite personal stuff, I find this change of heart ... disturbing.(off-wiki stuff probably isn't interesting to most people)
Are there, perhaps, more misdeeds afoot?
Do I begin to suspect that any and all accomplishments trumpeted to the clouds to be fabrications?
How many more sordid falsehoods have you hidden amongst the wiki-histories?
I do tremble with anticipation at what this weekend shall unearth.
Long laid claims come crawling to the light; walkers to the meat.
Denied and rebuked by our modern day Constantines.
I guess you could ask Bsadowski1 (T-C-L) about the Cover-up (T-H-L).User:Anthony cfc
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
00:05, 24 August 2013 Bsadowski1 (talk | changes) deleted page User:Anthony cfc (QD U1: User page or subpage where user asks for deletion: Per request)
The revision #310399 of the page named "Anthony cfc" does not exist.
This is usually caused by following an outdated history link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log.
A little history: linkA cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. In a passive cover-up information is simply not provided; in an active cover-up deception is used.
The expression is usually applied to people in positions of authority who abuse their power to avoid or silence criticism or to deflect guilt of wrongdoing. Those who initiate a cover up (or their allies) may be responsible for a misdeed, a breach of trust or duty or a crime.
While the terms are often used interchangeably, cover-up involves withholding incriminatory evidence, while whitewash involves releasing misleading evidence.
When a scandal breaks, the discovery of an attempt to cover up is often regarded as even more reprehensible than the original deeds.
In 2007, an arbitrator using the username Essjay resigned from the Committee after it was found that he had made false claims about his academic qualifications and professional experiences in a New York Times interview.[11][12][13] In June 2009, an arbitrator who edited under the username Sam Blacketer resigned from the Committee after it became known that he had concealed his past editing in obtaining the role.[5]
Not to me, you're not.Peter Damian wrote:I don't have a problem with anonymous people slandering me on the internet, so long as it is clear to everyone that they are merely anonymous people slandering me on the internet. Why should I care.
...
Am I making sense?
So he went to another non-Wikimediasite (see link above), begging to be an administrator. Even they turned him down.An interesting note is that every one of the powers he's applied to is one that Essjay holds; this seems almost like a form of wiki-stalking. In short, I think Anthony cfc just wants any power he can possibly get, and that's never a good trait in administrators. I do not trust him to handle the tools properly. Ral315 (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
shmm = AGK is easily proved from the email, although I have redacted it above.I'm requesting administratorship access on this site; I feel I will be able to assist - I'm on most of the time anyway. I keep a close eye on RC (though there is a shortage of vandals to bash
I support this request, given the seeming absence of recent admin activity (or at least monitering of pages like this one, and the pages for deletion). -- Lenoxus 11:57, 23 March 2007 (EST)
User Shmm has no history on this wiki by which to evaluate this request. His only contribution to this site, that has been attributed to his username, is this request for adminship. That's certainly not enough to judge by. I would not support such a request. —Stormraven (talk • contribs) 08:05, 25 March 2007 (EST)
Oppose per Stormraven. No contributions? OK, then make some edits before adminship. If you want another adminnistrator here I would support Stormraven. Henry 10:31, 25 March 2007 (EST)
Thanks, Henry!
The fact I'm a Bureaucrat on a Wikimedia Foundation wiki, as well as the Developer for a private Wiki, surely seals the deal? --Shmm 17:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Support, no Netural, no Support Ethier one, I mean really. If you could really install 10.0 or the one Wikipedia uses or that 10.0 thing you described in your other post, I support your request. Henry 19:41, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Query: Why do you want to administrate this wiki when you have almost no record of involvement in it other than this request for adminship? Moreover, since you already have your own wiki farm running a newer version of MediaWiki than is available here, why do you have any interest in EditThis at all? I mean no offense; I just don't see the sense in it. (By the way, RfAs can now go on Project:Requests for adminship.) —Stormraven (talk • contribs) 09:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
(reduce indent) because I have a sincere desire to protect this Wiki, as I have being protecting others of the Wikimedia Foundation --Shmm 15:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
(to Henry) I'd be glad to install the MediaWiki software, but I do draw your attention to the SHMM Servers where it is already installed. If this community can show themselves to be worth attention there, I'd happily get to work on the extensions, etc..., here --Shmm 15:19, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Correct me if i'm wrong, all of your contributions have either been requests for adminship. Or, albeit polite, spam for your hosting service. —Brendan (talk • contributions) 11:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
It also seems as if your site is but a wiki itself, being hosted on another site. —Brendan (talk • contributions) 12:01, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
My site is a Wiki, but I'm willing to host other Wikis on my server for no cost - it's simply a case of installing MediaWiki 10.0, and adding the extensions; Wikis are requested by emailing < redacted> or < redacted>, rather than an automated system like editthis.info. Check out my contributions - I've already reverted a few bits and bobs where necessary, and as I said I've already proved myself to Wikimedia as a sysop and Bureaucrat. --Shmm 16:26, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Oh dear. It's a basic principle that your reputation cannot be damaged except by someone who has a reputation themselves. If some Joe on the internet says I am a liar, that doesn't damage my reputation, because Joe has none. But if the New York Times calls me a liar, that does damage my reputation.thekohser wrote:Not to me, you're not.Peter Damian wrote:I don't have a problem with anonymous people slandering me on the internet, so long as it is clear to everyone that they are merely anonymous people slandering me on the internet. Why should I care.
...
Am I making sense?
21:45, 3 March 2007 "As I've been saying in another discussion, this is an encyclopedia - of articles. Simply because he doesn't have a string of letters after his name, does not mean his edits are of a secondary standard. The fact of the matter is, we cannot prove that had Essjay formalised his knowledge in this area (i.e. was a professer [sic]), his edits would have been of a higher standard; and it works the opposite way: claiming he was qualified when he was not, whilst not correct, does not mean his edits are null and void. Kind regards, anthonycfc [talk] 21:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Post script: I've renamed the header from "Shut up, you big babies" to "Achievements v. Controversy" because that was the subject of the first section post, for civility and WP:NPA purposes."
You're making sense in that we understand what you mean, but disagree. Anyone's reputation can easily be damaged by an anonymous entity on the Internet. For example, the entity starts with a real name that one unsuspectingly failed to protect. It then goes on to make unfounded accusations of murder or adultery or drug addiction or embezzlement etc. in a place where they're collected by a web-searcher like Google. Then when people search for the target's name, for example for a job application process or perhaps to find out whether or not to go on a date, the anonymous entity has damaged the target's reputation.Peter Damian wrote:Oh dear. It's a basic principle that your reputation cannot be damaged except by someone who has a reputation themselves. If some Joe on the internet says I am a liar, that doesn't damage my reputation, because Joe has none. But if the New York Times calls me a liar, that does damage my reputation.thekohser wrote:Not to me, you're not.Peter Damian wrote:I don't have a problem with anonymous people slandering me on the internet, so long as it is clear to everyone that they are merely anonymous people slandering me on the internet. Why should I care.
...
Am I making sense?
Does that make more sense? Still hoping.
The flaw in your logic is your mistaken belief that a person acting anonymously has no reputation, nor no ability to damage the reputations of others. Just look at SlimVirgin (a respected character on Wikipedia and in the wider media, damaging the reputation of the factory farming industry); or Essjay (damaging the reputation of The New Yorker); or Strumpette (not a Wikipedia phenomenon, but damaged the reputations of many in the PR industry). You can't just blindly say that anonymous characters don't have the ability to damage other named people's reputations, because they routinely do.Peter Damian wrote:Oh dear. It's a basic principle that your reputation cannot be damaged except by someone who has a reputation themselves. If some Joe on the internet says I am a liar, that doesn't damage my reputation, because Joe has none. But if the New York Times calls me a liar, that does damage my reputation.thekohser wrote:Not to me, you're not.Peter Damian wrote:I don't have a problem with anonymous people slandering me on the internet, so long as it is clear to everyone that they are merely anonymous people slandering me on the internet. Why should I care.
...
Am I making sense?
Does that make more sense? Still hoping.
But nothing ever really goes away on the internet: linkMancunium wrote:You must have spooked that lowlife Arbcom loser AGK, Vigilant.Vigilant wrote:From a guy whose simple wikipedia page was an exhaustive list of dubious claims about your offsite personal stuff, I find this change of heart ... disturbing.(off-wiki stuff probably isn't interesting to most people)
Are there, perhaps, more misdeeds afoot?
Do I begin to suspect that any and all accomplishments trumpeted to the clouds to be fabrications?
How many more sordid falsehoods have you hidden amongst the wiki-histories?
I do tremble with anticipation at what this weekend shall unearth.
Long laid claims come crawling to the light; walkers to the meat.
Denied and rebuked by our modern day Constantines.
Anthony's "Rain of Terror" tissue of lies/user page now looks like this:I guess you could ask Bsadowski1 (T-C-L) about the Cover-up (T-H-L).User:Anthony cfc
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
00:05, 24 August 2013 Bsadowski1 (talk | changes) deleted page User:Anthony cfc (QD U1: User page or subpage where user asks for deletion: Per request)
The revision #310399 of the page named "Anthony cfc" does not exist.
This is usually caused by following an outdated history link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log.A little history: linkA cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. In a passive cover-up information is simply not provided; in an active cover-up deception is used.
The expression is usually applied to people in positions of authority who abuse their power to avoid or silence criticism or to deflect guilt of wrongdoing. Those who initiate a cover up (or their allies) may be responsible for a misdeed, a breach of trust or duty or a crime.
While the terms are often used interchangeably, cover-up involves withholding incriminatory evidence, while whitewash involves releasing misleading evidence.
When a scandal breaks, the discovery of an attempt to cover up is often regarded as even more reprehensible than the original deeds.In 2007, an arbitrator using the username Essjay resigned from the Committee after it was found that he had made false claims about his academic qualifications and professional experiences in a New York Times interview.[11][12][13] In June 2009, an arbitrator who edited under the username Sam Blacketer resigned from the Committee after it became known that he had concealed his past editing in obtaining the role.[5]
In fact, "Anthony cfc" made quite the illiterate splash in the day:User:Anthony cfc/Personal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My username is derived from the initials of the football team I support, Celtic F.C., and my forename, Anthony, from the greek, ανθος (flower). I am one of few Simple Wikipedians that hails from Scotland, UK. I am a supporter of the EU and of its expansion, of the United Nations and the complete control of the UN over all worldwide peacekeeping at the expense of George W. Bush's rain of terror. I hail from a small town near the City of Glasgow - the largest and most influential city in Scotland, and the Second City after the Capital, Edinburgh. I am extremely gifted in that I am blessed with both excellent academic and sports skills; I am an avid player of football (as well as a follower) and I participate in weekly swimming events and such like. I believe that the common Western trend of overeating is dangerous and will eventually have a negative impact on the biological chain of evolution in some distant time or place. I am not a follower of Humanism - I simply admire the elegance of the logo. Neither, do I select any of my icons for any other reason but to show uniformity and open-mindedness towards the religions of others. My religion is Roman Catholic; however, I disagree with both the way the Roman Catholic Church is ran (namely the beautifying of mass services that has become all to common of late) and of the amount of funds that head in its direction.
I am blessed with a tremendous family who are always nearby, consisting of my mum and dad, younger brother and two younger sisters; I am also in a steady relationship with a non-Wikipedian (despite my best efforts
I am training for my P.P.L. (Private Pilot's License) which I hope to achieve in a few years; I enjoy flying, and support the improvement of environmental capabilities of aircraft to allow the upholding of Aviation as well as the environment's stabality. I use - and support - public transport, and disagree with the expansion of road links (e.g. the planned M74 Extension in Glasgow), except where necessary.
Although I am a newcomer to Wikipedia Simple, I have been around at Wikipedia English for almost a year before deciding to turn my attention to this worthwhile yet perhaps slightly neglected project that deserves a place as sister to Wikipedia English.
If I am requested my opinion, view or stance on a contravertial matter, I will simply say "I cannot comment due to my personal neutrality policy"
These are good examples, yes.thekohser wrote:The flaw in your logic is your mistaken belief that a person acting anonymously has no reputation, nor no ability to damage the reputations of others. Just look at SlimVirgin (a respected character on Wikipedia and in the wider media, damaging the reputation of the factory farming industry); or Essjay (damaging the reputation of The New Yorker); or Strumpette (not a Wikipedia phenomenon, but damaged the reputations of many in the PR industry). You can't just blindly say that anonymous characters don't have the ability to damage other named people's reputations, because they routinely do.Peter Damian wrote:Oh dear. It's a basic principle that your reputation cannot be damaged except by someone who has a reputation themselves. If some Joe on the internet says I am a liar, that doesn't damage my reputation, because Joe has none. But if the New York Times calls me a liar, that does damage my reputation.thekohser wrote:Not to me, you're not.Peter Damian wrote:I don't have a problem with anonymous people slandering me on the internet, so long as it is clear to everyone that they are merely anonymous people slandering me on the internet. Why should I care.
...
Am I making sense?
Does that make more sense? Still hoping.
Does that make sense?
I want to highlight this for the Wikipedians who lurk here, because it is true but maybe hard to see at a glance. There really is a core difference in attitude between the old website, Wikipedia Review, and this one, Wikipediocracy. The former site was in a war to the death against WP and it was a most unpleasant place to attempt to participate for anyone with any degree of faith in The Project. This site contains quite a few of the same warriors, but there is a broader range of perspectives allowed to be vetted without a cacophony of vicious hooting.Peter Damian wrote:
This reflects a deep and bitter division between the old WR regulars who believed WP incapable of reform, and the 'Wikipedia reformers'. For the old guard, even talking about Wikipedia on Wikipedia Review was anathema, a bit like the IRA refusing to recognise courts in Northern Ireland. You simply didn't acknowledge its existence.
That was in 2007. Since then, Wikipedia has emerged as a force to be taken seriously - in public relations, in education in politics, advertising. I don't see how you can't take it seriously. And the fact you want to reform it doesn't mean you want to be part of the weird cult that runs it.
Nothing says moral compass like this quote.Pull-out Clause
I reserve the right to ignore, in part or full, this neutrality policy at will for reasons that have or have not been stated, at any time.
Thank you for that statement, Randy.Randy from Boise wrote:I want to highlight this for the Wikipedians who lurk here, because it is true but maybe hard to see at a glance. There really is a core difference in attitude between the old website, Wikipedia Review, and this one, Wikipediocracy. The former site was in a war to the death against WP and it was a most unpleasant place to attempt to participate for anyone with any degree of faith in The Project. This site contains quite a few of the same warriors, but there is a broader range of perspectives allowed to be vetted without a cacophony of vicious hooting.Peter Damian wrote:
This reflects a deep and bitter division between the old WR regulars who believed WP incapable of reform, and the 'Wikipedia reformers'. For the old guard, even talking about Wikipedia on Wikipedia Review was anathema, a bit like the IRA refusing to recognise courts in Northern Ireland. You simply didn't acknowledge its existence.
That was in 2007. Since then, Wikipedia has emerged as a force to be taken seriously - in public relations, in education in politics, advertising. I don't see how you can't take it seriously. And the fact you want to reform it doesn't mean you want to be part of the weird cult that runs it.
ArbCom members? The target on your back is florescent orange (and for good reason), be assured of a rough reception. Other Wikipedians? You got a beef, this is a good place to vet it. Even the warriors don't bite as hard as they used to...
RfB
First of all, you didn't say "is OK/is not OK" originally, you said "don't care about." This is just "shifting the goalposts," and you of all people should know this - far better than me I might add, as I don't have anything remotely close to your philosophical training.Peter Damian wrote:Would you say that child abuse is not OK, except on Wikipedia?
Wikipedia's existence? I don't think that's correct. What I (for one) didn't acknowledge was the ability of then-current Wikipedians (not to mention now-current Wikipedians) to implement meaningful reforms on their own, or even understand the need for them. That is what doesn't exist. If you'd prefer to use the phrase "existence of the ability..." then that's fine - but please don't try to use semantics to make me (or the others) out to be delusional. (Or rather, any more delusional than we already are, as the case may be.)This reflects a deep and bitter division between the old WR regulars who believed WP incapable of reform, and the 'Wikipedia reformers'. For the old guard, even talking about Wikipedia on Wikipedia Review was anathema, a bit like the IRA refusing to recognise courts in Northern Ireland. You simply didn't acknowledge its existence.
I take the effects of Wikipedia very seriously. I don't take the people who cause those effects seriously, so you're at least half-right there.That was in 2007. Since then, Wikipedia has emerged as a force to be taken seriously - in public relations, in education in politics, advertising. I don't see how you can't take it seriously.
I never said that either. I only said that a cult is a better analogy to the Wikipedia "community" than a government is, and I stand by that completely.*And the fact you want to reform it doesn't mean you want to be part of the weird cult that runs it.
2013: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ot_licenseI am training for my P.P.L. (Private Pilot's License) which I hope to achieve in a few years; I enjoy flying, and support the improvement of environmental capabilities of aircraft to allow the upholding of Aviation as well as the environment's stabality.
And AGK "removed text"hi agk. being a pilot is so special.have you got your pilot's license yet?
This would make an interesting thread. I don't think either one of those things get to the essence of the good ol' boy network that is back of WP.Midsize Jake wrote: I never said that either. I only said that a cult is a better analogy to the Wikipedia "community" than a government is, and I stand by that completely.*
* And just for the record, btw, I honestly don't know if it's easier to reform a cult than it is a government - I suspect that would depend on circumstances - but if anything, the cult analogy works better in that regard too, since it's far more likely that someone would want to reform a cult from the outside than a government, since governments are usually best reformed from the inside.
There have been a few threads both here and on Wikipedia Review about the cult aspect. Perhaps there are elements to human nature common to cults and other social networks such as 'good ol boys'. The mistrust of outsiders. The passionate belief in the rightness of a cause.Randy from Boise wrote:This would make an interesting thread. I don't think either one of those things get to the essence of the good ol' boy network that is back of WP.Midsize Jake wrote: I never said that either. I only said that a cult is a better analogy to the Wikipedia "community" than a government is, and I stand by that completely.*
* And just for the record, btw, I honestly don't know if it's easier to reform a cult than it is a government - I suspect that would depend on circumstances - but if anything, the cult analogy works better in that regard too, since it's far more likely that someone would want to reform a cult from the outside than a government, since governments are usually best reformed from the inside.
In fact, it's a good ol' boy network. Think right and drive a nice pickup truck and they'll let you in the club.
It's somehow really cloistered and really conservative — but all decked out in the latest Politically Correct and Righteous phraseology.
RfB
Does that include Beeblebrox and illiterate Anthony G. Kelly?Peter Damian wrote:There have been a few threads both here and on Wikipedia Review about the cult aspect. Perhaps there are elements to human nature common to cults and other social networks such as 'good ol boys'. The mistrust of outsiders. The passionate belief in the rightness of a cause.Randy from Boise wrote:This would make an interesting thread. I don't think either one of those things get to the essence of the good ol' boy network that is back of WP.Midsize Jake wrote: I never said that either. I only said that a cult is a better analogy to the Wikipedia "community" than a government is, and I stand by that completely.*
* And just for the record, btw, I honestly don't know if it's easier to reform a cult than it is a government - I suspect that would depend on circumstances - but if anything, the cult analogy works better in that regard too, since it's far more likely that someone would want to reform a cult from the outside than a government, since governments are usually best reformed from the inside.
In fact, it's a good ol' boy network. Think right and drive a nice pickup truck and they'll let you in the club.
It's somehow really cloistered and really conservative — but all decked out in the latest Politically Correct and Righteous phraseology.
RfB
As I understand 'good ol boy' networks, they are an almost conscious attempt to preserve a power or class structure, from conscious or cynical self-interest. With Wikipedia, by contrast, you have people who truly and sincerely and earnestly believe in the righteousness of their cause. Mixed in with quite a few people who are on the bandwagon of course.
I have them down as true believers. Beeb once had something on his page, can't find, about how speaking out the truth in plain language (probably 'fuck off') had got him into all sorts of trouble in real life, and on Wikipedia, but he wasn't going to stop. Kelly is true believer in a more sinister, but probably truly believes.Wer900 wrote:Does that include Beeblebrox and illiterate Anthony G. Kelly?Peter Damian wrote: As I understand 'good ol boy' networks, they are an almost conscious attempt to preserve a power or class structure, from conscious or cynical self-interest. With Wikipedia, by contrast, you have people who truly and sincerely and earnestly believe in the righteousness of their cause. Mixed in with quite a few people who are on the bandwagon of course.