The thread where we say some nice things about some people

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:56 am

This is a criticism site so obviously most of the commentary is going to focus on the negative, as it should. But there does need to be a place where we provide the carrot as well as the stick, so to speak, and commend the peoples who have gotten better over time, even if only in small ways.

To that end, I just wanted to say that HJ Mitchell seems to be one guy that I've seen that has actually improved quite a bit over time. When I first ran into him he just seemed like another one of the nameless clueless thoughtless auto patroller admins - and IIRC I gave him some crap over some stupidity over at WP:AE. But he really has gotten better it seems. First, he voluntarily put his adminship on the line (we can argue about whether this was tokenism, but it's still helluva lot more than most of them are willing to do) and asked for reconfirmation. Second, it does look, at least at a cursory glance that he's been spending a lot more time on stuff that actually matters - writing articles etc. rather than the dramah and politics. Third, his recent comments at Lord Roem's RfA were actually quite on point and insightful (and expressed in a less belligerent manner than mine).

So, yeah, kudos.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:36 am

I've got some stuff to post about Harry, but this is the "nice" thread, so I won't.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:10 am

The way I figure it, you hang out on Wikipedia long enough, there's gonna be dirt. The whole staring at the abyss and it staring back at you thing. So it's relative. And meaningful improvements should be noted.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:12 am

People should be nice to each other by default. It shouldn't be necessary to have to single-out nice people for positive reinforcement. The fact that so many of the active participants in Wikipedia are full or part-time jerks is an indictment of Wikipedia's model. Anyway, in my experience, many of the nicest editors I have come across have been in the MILHIST, LGBT, and law wikiprojects.

The Wife · Unread post by **The Wife** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:24 am

DonaldRichardSands is a stranger to me who helped on the theosophy article. I am not well-acquainted with theosophy but I was willing to improve the article. DonaldRichardSands was also new to the topic and he mentored me. He's swell and I believe he is smart.

I'd love to return the favor to him someday or just to say thanks.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:57 am

This thread is a wonderful idea.

To make it work, I would propose a rule: others are allowed to agree with and expand on any nice things said, but they're not allowed to disagree. (At least not in this thread.) Okay?

The Wife · Unread post by **The Wife** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 3:18 am

Rathel · Unread post by **Rathel** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:41 am

Since this is a thread to say nice things about people, I wanted to mention User Philcha, who is said to have passed away. I thought he was a good person and it is sad to hear that he will no longer be around.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:00 am

Rathel wrote:Since this is a thread to say nice things about people, I wanted to mention User Philcha, who is said to have passed away. I thought he was a good person and it is sad to hear that he will no longer be around.

+1. See Philcha (T-C-L). Philcha had his hand in countless quality articles on Wikipedia. He is missed.

The Wife · Unread post by **The Wife** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:53 am

Rathel and HRIP7, I'm sorry to hear he passed away. Missing someone reminds us of how communities are real.

Thanks for sharing his memory.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:23 pm

Wouldn't it be great if the thread title where spelled correctly?

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:52 pm

There are many wonderful people involved in Wikipedia. Whether they know it or not, this forum works for them as well.

Too often, it's the rancid and misguided who make the news in an organization.

Rathel · Unread post by **Rathel** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:08 pm

Lord Roem withdrew his RfA. I believe it was the right thing to do, and it was good that he did not cast any accusations in his withdrawal. He says he is committed to improving based on various criticism he has received. I am surprised that the Arbitration Committee had a clerk that was not an admin for many reasons with an emphasis on technical limitations. However, I believe he has handled a lot of the flack that he has received lately in a manner that is impressive when compared to most admin.

powercorrupts · Unread post by **powercorrupts** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:30 pm

Volunteer Marek wrote: I just wanted to say that HJ Mitchell seems to be one guy that I've seen that has actually improved quite a bit over time. ...

So, yeah, kudos.

HJ Mitchell, in my opinion, seems to scarcely realise that admin can have a POV, and that their POV can influence their thought processes. He seems to think that 'admin people' are 'admin people' and can simply do their job - or why else are they admin? His comment at the RfA on "tact, diplomacy and judgement" (being the qualities of adminship) might seem like progression in terms of his own maturity, but in my opinion his judgement stinks, so it sounds a bit rote to me. It's the POV thing he doesn't seem to get, and a word like 'unbiased' of course was missing from his 'qualities' list.

'Niceness' is of course a hugely important thing on Wikipedia, where it's a complicated ritual involving barnstars, grooming, comparative favouritism and cybersex. What always struck me about HJ Mitchell him is how he can't seem to tie his laces up - have you seen his user-page picture?

Btw, I don't see how writing articles can be 'more important' than tackling the internal politics of Wikipedia - surely the former are so problematic largely because the latter is so corrupt.

powercorrupts · Unread post by **powercorrupts** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:35 pm

HRIP7 wrote:This thread is a wonderful idea.

To make it work, I would propose a rule: others are allowed to agree with and expand on any nice things said, but they're not allowed to disagree. (At least not in this thread.) Okay?

Well it would get more Wikipedians over I guess! You could call it WPD:NICE.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 8:22 pm

There's a long list of good people still writing decent content for Wikipedia, many of them every day. This forum and WR NEVER talks about those folks, so they end up being invisible.
It's really sad that the content writers are quitting while the patrollers and mad gnomes are taking over.

powercorrupts · Unread post by **powercorrupts** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 8:40 pm

EricBarbour wrote:There's a long list of good people still writing decent content for Wikipedia, many of them every day. This forum and WR NEVER talks about those folks, so they end up being invisible.
It's really sad that the content writers are quitting while the patrollers and mad gnomes are taking over.

You could create a forum just for decent edits/contributors perhaps - though it's hard to imagine anything here not creating some disagreement! You have to sort out Off Topic imo - it does too many things, and the music/film/book threads etc don't seem to belong. Those kind of things really are 'crap shoots' as you say in America, some interesting stuff intermixed with people using Wikipedia for two minutes. You need a 'lounge' perhaps.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:32 pm

powercorrupts wrote: What always struck me about HJ Mitchell him is how he can't seem to tie his laces up - have you seen his user-page picture?

To be fair, I can't tie up my laces either.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:40 pm

You won't like it, but I would have to nominate Malleus and Giano as two of the best Wikipedia content writers of all time.
The fact that they are constantly harassed for "incivility" takes nothing away from the fact that they're doing far more
for an "encyclopedia" than virtually any of their attackers.

(I also think they're both cranks, but hey, whatever......)

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:45 pm

EricBarbour wrote:You won't like it, but I would have to nominate Malleus and Giano as two of the best Wikipedia content writers of all time.
The fact that they are constantly harassed for "incivility" takes nothing away from the fact that they're doing far more
for an "encyclopedia" than virtually any of their attackers.

(I also think they're both cranks, but hey, whatever......)

+100.
Admins don't like frank discussions with people who turn out to be much smarter than they are.

powercorrupts · Unread post by **powercorrupts** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:51 pm

Volunteer Marek wrote:
To be fair, I can't tie up my laces either.

Goodness me. I think I'll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:At_the_Foundation.JPG - give a link to the pic. I do seem to be fascinated by it when his page pops up. It's a bit like HRIP7's avatar on here - I keep staring at it (but I think that's just because I can't work out wtf it is). Mitchell just looks so blissfully happy too. Maybe You've found the secret Marek?

The Wife · Unread post by **The Wife** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:51 pm

EricBarbour wrote:You won't like it, but I would have to nominate Malleus and Giano as two of the best Wikipedia content writers of all time.

I haven't acquainted myself with Giano much.

I can think of many positive characteristics of Malleus. He's an independent thinker. He's a persistent fly in the face of people who can be led to water, but refuse to think.

I find the "c" word unacceptable at all times, but that's a matter for debate. It's not the "n" word which is clearly not culturally tolerated.

isaan · Unread post by **isaan** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:23 pm

EricBarbour wrote:There's a long list of good people still writing decent content for Wikipedia, many of them every day. This forum and WR NEVER talks about those folks, so they end up being invisible..

I mostly have been involved in a few hard science topics. There are many good writers, some current, some departed. I think lots of them prefer to be under the radar and gain satisfaction by just producing good content, and they usually know that others knowledgeable in their fields of interest respect them.

One excellent writer in the science areas who did toot his own horn on WR is Milton Roe. His wiki-identity continues to produce the kind of content that a proper encyclopedia should have.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:13 pm

powercorrupts wrote:It's a bit like HRIP7's avatar on here - I keep staring at it (but I think that's just because I can't work out wtf it is).

An ice-cold, extremely well-flavoured Margarita after a long walk on a hot day.

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:45 pm

HRIP7 wrote:This thread is a wonderful idea.

To make it work, I would propose a rule: others are allowed to agree with and expand on any nice things said, but they're not allowed to disagree. (At least not in this thread.) Okay?

I disagree, and I think that idea sucks.

Hersch · Unread post by **Hersch** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:47 pm

I like the BLP Avengers, including Scott MacDonald née Doc glasgow and YouReallyCan née Off2rioRob. I believe that the latter has an account here, but whatever happened to the former?

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:05 pm

powercorrupts wrote:What always struck me about HJ Mitchell him is how he can't seem to tie his laces up - have you seen his user-page picture?

Better than that, I've actually met him, and so far as I recall the knots in his shoe laces were perfectly presentable.

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:15 pm

The Wife wrote: I find the "c" word unacceptable at all times, but that's a matter for debate. It's not the "n" word which is clearly not culturally tolerated.

The "n" word would only be acceptable here if used by a black person to describe themselves, and it's not a word I would ever be likely to use. I have absolutely no racial, religious or gender prejudices; my prejudices are all directed towards ignorance, stupidity and corruption.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:58 pm

Hersch wrote:I like the BLP Avengers, including Scott MacDonald née Doc glasgow and YouReallyCan née Off2rioRob. I believe that the latter has an account here, but whatever happened to the former?

Perhaps his interest in Wikipedia criticism ended when his interest in Wikipedia editing did. He hasn't been seen on Wikipedia since February following The Great SOPA Blackout.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:34 pm

"the thread where we say some nice things about some people"

Try, try harder.

powercorrupts · Unread post by **powercorrupts** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:36 pm

Hersch wrote:I like the BLP Avengers, including Scott MacDonald née Doc glasgow and YouReallyCan née Off2rioRob. I believe that the latter has an account here, but whatever happened to the former?

Off2rioRob? Why? When I look at him he's just another tough guy persona with delusions of grandeur and a really unpleasant streak. His attempt to run for arbcom was ridiculous.

Some examples would be useful in a thread like this.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:40 pm

Tarc wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:This thread is a wonderful idea.

To make it work, I would propose a rule: others are allowed to agree with and expand on any nice things said, but they're not allowed to disagree. (At least not in this thread.) Okay?
I disagree, and I think that idea sucks.

Hersch · Unread post by **Hersch** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:07 pm

powercorrupts wrote:
Hersch wrote:I like the BLP Avengers, including Scott MacDonald née Doc glasgow and YouReallyCan née Off2rioRob. I believe that the latter has an account here, but whatever happened to the former?
Off2rioRob? Why? When I look at him he's just another tough guy persona with delusions of grandeur and a really unpleasant streak. His attempt to run for arbcom was ridiculous.

Some examples would be useful in a thread like this.

I just remember him being an unpleasant tough guy toward some of the jacked-up BLP defamers, possibly including Hipocrite. I found that behavior to be highly appropriate. I should also mention Collect as one of the BLP Avengers.

Alison · Unread post by **Alison** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:14 am

Mod note: I've split out the ferret stuff into a separate thread. Back to saying nice things

The Wife · Unread post by **The Wife** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:51 am

Malleus wrote:
The Wife wrote: I find the "c" word unacceptable at all times, but that's a matter for debate. It's not the "n" word which is clearly not culturally tolerated.
The "n" word would only be acceptable here if used by a black person to describe themselves, and it's not a word I would ever be likely to use. I have absolutely no racial, religious or gender prejudices; my prejudices are all directed towards ignorance, stupidity and corruption.

I believe that about you. I read your use of the "c" word on POD's page. It didn't make me think unkindly of you. It's a principle of mine. I don't think it's necessary that you or the world agree. I may be an idealist.

Ironically, I'm the swearer at home and my husband never, ever curses. My swearing has hurt and offended him.

The sexists who really bug me are the ones who act so politically correct while treating women like crap when it suits them. Seems we've raised one or two generations of them. Give me Archie Bunker any day. At least I could say to him, "Stop acting like a sexist creep," and he wouldn't act horrified that I'd called him on it.

Life's complicated. That's one of the things I really appreciate about Malleus. He's complicated and I perceive that to be a result of being genuine.

The Wife · Unread post by **The Wife** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:56 am

Hersch wrote:I like the BLP Avengers, including Scott MacDonald née Doc glasgow and YouReallyCan née Off2rioRob. I believe that the latter has an account here, but whatever happened to the former?

... I should also mention Collect as one of the BLP Avengers.

Collect has caught my notice. He or she seems like an honest, smart, forthright person. Good on him or her for donating time to WP.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:57 am

Hersch wrote:I like the BLP Avengers, including Scott MacDonald née Doc glasgow and YouReallyCan née Off2rioRob. I believe that the latter has an account here, but whatever happened to the former?

Scott MacDonald retired due to the SOPA protest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scott_MacDonald

Hersch · Unread post by **Hersch** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:39 am

Michaeldsuarez wrote: Scott MacDonald retired due to the SOPA protest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scott_MacDonald

I find that completely bizarre. "For the first time, Jimbo Wales has asked, and the community has agreed, that we no longer leave our own ideologies at the door"? No one ever left their ideologies at the door, not the admins, not the arbs, no one. So perhaps Scott felt it was important to keep it so in theory, even if in practice they never even made any pretense? What would be the point? Maybe he was just tired of the place and came up with an excuse to leave.

powercorrupts · Unread post by **powercorrupts** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:40 pm

Hersch wrote:
Michaeldsuarez wrote: Scott MacDonald retired due to the SOPA protest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scott_MacDonald
I find that completely bizarre. "For the first time, Jimbo Wales has asked, and the community has agreed, that we no longer leave our own ideologies at the door"? No one ever left their ideologies at the door, not the admins, not the arbs, no one. So perhaps Scott felt it was important to keep it so in theory, even if in practice they never even made any pretense? What would be the point? Maybe he was just tired of the place and came up with an excuse to leave.

ScottMac didn't question whether anyone really leaves ideology at the door - he pointed out, quite rightly, that Jimbo is being political here (as is Jimbo's wont).

FWIW I was totally against the 'black out', partly for similar reasons to ScottM's, partly because I think the web (and the WMF esp) desperately needs to be regulated, and I'd rather they start somewhere (clumsy as it's likely to be at first).

Although I seem to remember disagreeing with Scott a couple of years back over something I thought he was a bit too polite about, I expect he is as worthy of compliment in a dippy thread like this as anyone. I can't see any comparison between him and off2riorob, apart from a stance they may have shared (and who doesn't from time to time?)

PS. I don't agree with adding Orangemarlin (sorry the ref has gone) - he's a classic 'expert in everything' editor across the 'medical' field. He's not a prose man, he's strictly content police. Wikipedia has far too many self-imposed "experts in the field" if you ask me. He actually sells a product to hospitals, though he's never disclosed it on Wikipedia, only off it, bragging in a motorbike site about being a millionaire.

OM's thing was (or is now he's back), to get an article to Featured Article FA status whether it deserved to be or not, so it's OM-approved content could be more-easily controlled. I think even the benign loudmouth Malleus is as guilty of the 'FA = PROTECTED CONTENT' mentality btw, and there are a number of problems with it. For OM it was partly a technical thing (the right 'code' etc), and oppressing 'irrelevant bullshit' like care issues (which are often an actual treatment) ... going on to the thorny issue of complementary health (which he cannot tolerate at all). Like many oft-protected 'uber editors' like him, he basically doesn't agree with the 5 pillars, and that Wikipedia should intrinsically be able to deal with content: OM is very much the 'alpha way': force first. Comp/health issues aside, he is particularly pharmo-orientated (and giving technical blurb before common-reader language), and MEDMOS (the medical 'manual of style') used to be similar in that regard imo. It's not an easy area for Wikipedia obviously (I question whether it's the right place for particularly technical stuff at all), but it all has to be tackled properly or not at all as far as I'm concerned. The tag-teaming between Orangemarlin and his supposed "mentor" commissioner JPGordon made mentorship look more like a case of Al Capone with the police. Talk about protectionism.

The Wife · Unread post by **The Wife** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:08 pm

I like Floquenbeam. Today he got POed at AN/I and his comment was deleted. It reminds me of the movie Network. I think it's healthy to yell, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." It demonstrates you are not completely insane.

He categories himself as a Burnt-out Wikipedians, a Wikipedians who wish Bish and Giano would come back, a Wikipedians who wish LHvU would come back, and a Wikipedians who wish a lot of others would come back too, but who don't have the energy to categorize them all.

I hope Floquenbeam has a reputable past because I haven't checked.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:58 am

powercorrupts wrote:PS. I don't agree with adding Orangemarlin (sorry the ref has gone) - he's a classic 'expert in everything' editor across the 'medical' field. He's not a prose man, he's strictly content police. Wikipedia has far too many self-imposed "experts in the field" if you ask me. He actually sells a product to hospitals, though he's never disclosed it on Wikipedia, only off it, bragging in a motorbike site about being a millionaire.

I know all that. You could make a case for the necessity of warring with people to protect good content, too. Agree that he could have been tossed for COI, since his company makes medical products. Instead, they tossed him for fighting. (Brilliant!)

I could point out Joe Mabel as an example of a good content maker. Was reminded of him today, because he was pointing out long ago that paid editing was inevitable on Wikipedia, so they might as well deal with it rationally (they never did and still never do).

Why does he continue to put up with the lunacy and the lies? Look at his talkpage, they harass him about photos he uploads, just like a lot of other people.

The Wife · Unread post by **The Wife** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:02 am

The Wife wrote:I like Floquenbeam. Today he got POed at AN/I and his comment was deleted. It reminds me of the movie Network. I think it's healthy to yell, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." It demonstrates you are not completely insane.

He categories himself as a Burnt-out Wikipedians, a Wikipedians who wish Bish and Giano would come back, a Wikipedians who wish LHvU would come back, and a Wikipedians who wish a lot of others would come back too, but who don't have the energy to categorize them all...

Here's what he wrote at AN/I with the edit summary "cunts."

Everyone harassing this user is a fucking asshole. And a cunt, in the North American meaning of the word. This is intended to be a personal attack, and I'm well aware of all the blue linked acronyms, so please feel free to block me without the preliminary twinkle warning template; I'll consider being blocked for being opposed to these fucking clowns harassing a harmless editor as something of a barnstar. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:07 am

EricBarbour wrote:
powercorrupts wrote:PS. I don't agree with adding Orangemarlin (sorry the ref has gone) - he's a classic 'expert in everything' editor across the 'medical' field. He's not a prose man, he's strictly content police. Wikipedia has far too many self-imposed "experts in the field" if you ask me. He actually sells a product to hospitals, though he's never disclosed it on Wikipedia, only off it, bragging in a motorbike site about being a millionaire.
I know all that. You could make a case for the necessity of warring with people to protect good content, too. Agree that he could have been tossed for COI, since his company makes medical products. Instead, they tossed him for fighting. (Brilliant!)

I could point out Joe Mabel as an example of a good content maker. Was reminded of him today, because he was pointing out long ago that paid editing was inevitable on Wikipedia, so they might as well deal with it rationally (they never did and still never do).

Why does he continue to put up with the lunacy and the lies? Look at his talkpage, they harass him about photos he uploads, just like a lot of other people.

Yeah, he's a good one.

Angela Kennedy · Unread post by **Angela Kennedy** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 8:47 am

Tarc wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:This thread is a wonderful idea.

To make it work, I would propose a rule: others are allowed to agree with and expand on any nice things said, but they're not allowed to disagree. (At least not in this thread.) Okay?
I disagree, and I think that idea sucks.

Truthfully? So do I. Where do we disagree if we have to, for one thing? Start a whole new thread on how we disagree for each person?

Angela Kennedy · Unread post by **Angela Kennedy** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:06 am

I'd like to nominate myself. I have a handle on the problems of wikipedia as a powerful 'public' knowledge producing domain, even though I'm a banned user. I cut through the bullshit really well while I was on there, even though the cult-like atmosphere was terrifying.

I'd like to nominate Suzy Chapman (MEAgenda) for similar qualities. And Guido den Broeder.

Ombudsman gets a LOT of flak he does not deserve, and was one of the few friendly, non-hostiles to welcome me on there and try to help me start up.

Ferrylodge was another getting thoroughly misrepresented on there on the whole abortion and related issues, but he tried to behave reasonably (in my opinion).

Greg Kohs, Johnny Cache, Moulton, Hersch, I have a lot of admiration for.

See where this is going?

This thread is inevitably subjective and opinion led. To have people like Orange Marlin potentially lionized and not being able to disagree is highly dysphoric for someone like me. That dude is one of the worst pseudo-skeptics on there, with a pernicious presence (in my opinion). Other people will likely feel the same about other names mentioned on here - and possibly that same dysphoria at being muzzled, or shut in the 'nice house' a la Addams Family Values...

The people mentioned above are the persona non-gratis of wikipedia, but who have, through their own actions in dissent of the wikipedia in-house views, or through the actions towards them, have revealed a lot about the rank problems of wikipedia (and hell there are many more like them). In that way they are surely useful and deserve 'nice things' said about them?

One person on wikipedia who has a thankless task on there and my full admiration is Alison, though. I don't think I'm being controversial there am I?

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:27 am

Hells no---Alison should be given a big gold medal and a big fat cashier's check for putting up with the Worst of the Web for all those years. The only reason she stays on WP
is to try to protect children and other innocents who blunder into the lunatic asylum. I could not manage that much patience even if someone had me on salary to do it.

And you can ignore Tarc. Part of the purpose of WPocracy is to be better than WR. And if that means discussing WIkipedians who are actually doing good work, so be it.
There was absolutely not enough of that on WR, and it was often used to attack WR.

How about Waalkes? He does almost nothing but LaRouche articles, and yet hasn't been banned as a Hersch sock, because he's in Germany.
Dunno how he does it. Thumbs up or down?

The Wife · Unread post by **The Wife** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:21 pm

Angela Kennedy wrote:I'd like to nominate myself. I have a handle on the problems of wikipedia as a powerful 'public' knowledge producing domain, even though I'm a banned user. I cut through the bullshit really well while I was on there, even though the cult-like atmosphere was terrifying...

Greg Kohs... Hersch, I have a lot of admiration for...

One person on wikipedia who has a thankless task on there and my full admiration is Alison, though. I don't think I'm being controversial there am I?

I second all of the above. I took out the people I don't know at all. I'm still fairly new.

I'll add a new one: badmachine. ArbCom has taken over his block case. He's been unfairly accused. He made people laugh.

The Wife · Unread post by **The Wife** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:01 pm

powercorrupts wrote:Is this thread actually about Wikipedia, here, or just people we quite like anywhere? If it is I'd like to nominate my mate Dave. He's always there in the pub, at the match - top guy.

Volunteer Marek wrote:

But there does need to be a place where we provide the carrot as well as the stick, so to speak, and commend the peoples who have gotten better over time, even if only in small ways.

So I believe improved behavior or positive contributions on WP are one valuable reason for the thread.

YMMV (I learned that acronym here.)

powercorrupts · Unread post by **powercorrupts** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:22 pm

That sounds fair enough (and I was a bit flippant), it's just your examples really - Kohs, Herch and Alison - the people you know better, as you say, but from there or here? Kohs does great work criticising the WMF obviously, and I actually agree with him that it's absurd for Wikipedia to disallow paid editing, but his own edits on Wikipedia (as far as I understand - I don't go sock hunting) are basically by sockpuppets for companies, and for money (fair enough but...). Herch is also banned from Wikipedia (not necessarily a bad thing in itself), and has made countless often-daft sockpuppets since - and for what purpose exactly..? Alison makes more sense, but has been half-retired for years; she was most active there a long time ago. It just struck me that it looks as much a comment about in here as over there. I just wanted to make the distinction - here and there, there and here.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:34 pm

Angela Kennedy wrote:Ferrylodge was another getting thoroughly misrepresented on there on the whole abortion and related issues, but he tried to behave reasonably (in my opinion).

Yeah, he got roughed up pretty badly on the Palin article too, when I was helping with the "article probation". Is he still around?