Crow back up to his old tricks

[Hemiauchenia]

After a 7 months on-wiki hiatus, Crow has finally returned to Wikipedia. His initial act was slightly more clever than his previous ones. For context, the former Public Astronomer at the Royal Observatory Greenwich Marek Kukula (T-H-L) was convicted in 2018 of possession of child pornography. However, this was only reported in The Sun and the Daily Mail, which are deprecated sources, and so therefore the conviction wasn't included in the article. This recently was brought up in a post on the reliable sources noticeboard by Pigsonthewing (T-C-L)Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Very_serious_crime,_but_only_deprecated_sources (T-H-L). During the discussion, the idea that the article should go to AfD was raised by several users, and as such I opened an AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marek_Kukula (T-H-L).

During the discussion, a brand new account, Mr Happy Shoes (T-C-L), voted keep and made a major effort to expand the article, the article was eventually kept. Several days after the AfD closed, Mr Happy Shoes attempted to add the conviction information, citing The Sun, but was reverted (by me), He then went on long rants on various noticeboards Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#On_righting_great_wrongs (T-H-L), Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mr_Happy_Shoes (T-H-L) about how the British tabloids were being wrongly maligned, before being blocked as a sock of Brian K Horton (T-H-L) (Crows June 2020 sock) by CaptainEek (T-C-L), there is a couple of socks after that that aren't really worth discussing.

I think the Marek Kukula situation raises an interesting dilemma, and several people in the AfD voted delete (including me) because of the inability to give a complete biography due to the lack of coverage of his convictions. A lot of the reasons for the deprecation of both the Daily Mail and The Sun were for BLP issues, which I am largely sympathetic to, but it's pretty odd the conviction wasn't covered elsewhere.

[Without Comfort]

Good on him for raising awareness. Not all socking is morally wrong.

[Hemiauchenia]

Good on him for raising awareness. Not all socking is morally wrong.

The problem is that Crow isn't even really even that good of a sockmaster, his approach this time was novel, which caused him to evade detection for some time, but his subsequent socks Cheetham Jones Parks (T-C-L), Dr Smeet (T-C-L) and Christian Murray (T-C-L) went back to exactly the same Brian K Horton formula that got his obvious socks like Christine O'Connell (T-C-L) (where he pretended to be a Mail journalist) promptly blocked. He totally lacks the art of subtlety, once he starts ranting you know its him.

[Without Comfort]

I can't be sure that he's really after evading detection over the long haul. Isn't he HtD?

[Hemiauchenia]

I can't be sure that he's really after evading detection over the long haul. Isn't he HtD?

Not sure what "HtD" means in this context. My point is that if Crow wanted to cause maximum disruption or seriously challenge Wikipedia's deprecation on British tabloids (which has been a constant focus since the creation of TheDarkenedKnight Reddit account in 2017) then he would be much more successful if his attempts weren't so formulaic and wooden, the blatant {{real name}} socks are just so obvious, and when he starts ranting the incredibly long walls of text it's very easy to tell it's him, the sheer length and text style is so distinctive.

[AndyTheGrump]

There really aren't any easy answers for this one. A biography omitting what would appear to be significant facts which have affected the subject's career is clearly undesirable. And deleting a biography because you can't include such facts isn't good either. And yet the deprecation (not 'ban') of the Sun and Daily Mail (along with many other publications) as sources seems justified as a more general practice, given the issues the use of such crappy tabloids have raised. Ultimately, I suppose, this comes down to having to create hard-and-fast rules (or give the impression of having hard-and-fast-rules) because far too many contributors lack the judgement to create appropriate content without them. Wikipedia is structurally flawed, as a consequence of its founding principles.

As for Crow/Happy Shoes/Endless Socks, he found a convenient way in to get back on his soapboxing ego-trip, and exploited it. I very much doubt he gives a damn about Kukula. Or anything else, except proving himself right, to himself. A sad little narcissist, desperate for attention. I suspect his poor efforts at socking are down to him (perhaps unconsciously) wanting to get caught. Exactly the sort of person that any rationally-run 'encyclopaedia' (or any other publication of consequence) could do better without. His presence makes dealing with difficult problems harder still.

[Vigilant]

Crow is amusing, but that much absinthe makes him cranky.

[Poetlister]

Undoubtedly, Marek Kukula deserves an article. And however unreliable British tabloids may be, they aren't going to risk a libel action by claiming someone has been charged with a serious crime when he hasn't, so it must be safe to use them. Anyway, The Sun hasn't been as comprehensively denigrated as the Daily Mail, possibly because it is less stridently right-wing.

[Without Comfort]

I can't be sure that he's really after evading detection over the long haul. Isn't he HtD?

Not sure what "HtD" means in this context. My point is that if Crow wanted to cause maximum disruption or seriously challenge Wikipedia's deprecation on British tabloids (which has been a constant focus since the creation of TheDarkenedKnight Reddit account in 2017) then he would be much more successful if his attempts weren't so formulaic and wooden, the blatant {{real name}} socks are just so obvious, and when he starts ranting the incredibly long walls of text it's very easy to tell it's him, the sheer length and text style is so distinctive.

HtD is an orientation towards Wikipedia criticism that wants to "Hasten the Day" that Wikipedia no longer exists. He may not want to challenge the deprecation of British tabloids. This was an opening for his brand of criticism, and I'm glad he took it. Objectively, Wikipedia's hard and fast rule has harmed readers who should be apprised as to the danger this BLP person represents, and the perpetrator does not deserve a sanitized biography. Nuance matters and a new rule incorporating what is now known should be created for Wikipedia: "We don't cite the Daily Mail or Sun except when we have a vote here that says they are objectively correct, the information is important for readers, and the information is unavailable elsewhere." It's a three-pronged test. My hunch is that those who worked to deprecate those sources might agree. I think at least one of those people is a member here and would be interested in his thoughts.

[Moral Hazard]

Thanks to SlimVirgin et al., Wikipedia:BLP (T-H-L) has reduced the ability of Wikipedia weirdos to smear living persons with libelous and defamatory garbage.

It also reduces the ability of Wikipedia editors to write apparently true propositions, until such propositions have been published in two reliable sources (with higher quality reliable-sources required for otherwise potentially libelous or defamatory claims).

The last thing that the world needs is more Wikipedia attacks on living persons sourced only to tabloids (even if said attacks consist of truths).

[Bezdomni]

Thanks to SlimVirgin et al., Wikipedia:BLP (T-H-L) has reduced the ability of Wikipedia weirdos to smear living persons with libelous and defamatory garbage.

This business with the Mail is conspiracy theory, something I despise and that I thought all sensible Wikipedians did too. But for some reason, when it comes to the Mail, the community (or part of it) has let itself be led down that path. SarahSV (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

source

Still, I agree in general that BLP should not be smearing living people. That's one of the reasons I'm banned.

The last thing that the world needs is more Wikipedia fact-attacks on living persons sourced only to tabloids (even if said fact-attacks consist of truths).

Conversely, innuendo (fact or fiction) in (a certain type of) RS is generally seen as fair game on some BLP. The world does not need more of that either...

[Vigilant]

Thanks to SlimVirgin et al., Wikipedia:BLP (T-H-L) has reduced the ability of Wikipedia weirdos to smear living persons with libelous and defamatory garbage.

Let's not forget that she was a bad actor on the other side in her Quixotic crusade to pillory Daniel Brandt.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

... My point is that if Crow wanted to cause maximum disruption or seriously challenge Wikipedia's deprecation on British tabloids (which has been a constant focus since the creation of TheDarkenedKnight Reddit account in 2017) then he would be much more successful if his attempts weren't so formulaic and wooden, the blatant {{real name}} socks are just so obvious, and when he starts ranting the incredibly long walls of text it's very easy to tell it's him, the sheer length and text style is so distinctive.

I don't think Crow has any rational objective - he's too emotionally unstable and consumed by animosity for anything as intellectual as a strategy.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Something seems off about the whole story. The police raid his home, presumably because they have information that he has accessed child porn. The police find downloaded child porn on his devices. Hundreds of images. The Sun says "The worst material showed boys aged between ten and fourteen years-old having sex with each other and with adult men.". And yet, he receives a suspended sentence.

This guy seems like he would be well-known in his field. And he works for a government institution. And a Doctor Who book! Yet the only newspapers to report on this are two tabloids. Why did every other newspaper take a pass on this story?

[Without Comfort]

Slap on the wrist doesn't raise any suspicions for me. Do you have any data on how widespread news coverage is of similar cases there?

[AndyTheGrump]

Something seems off about the whole story.

I'd say woefully incomplete. Kukula seems to have "downloaded and deleted the images between 2006 and 2009", and have had the police raid him many years later. Do the Met Police have an almost ten-year backlog for investigating suspected illegal downloads? Or did they have some other reason to investigate Kuluka? I have to suspect there is more to this story, though whether it would place Kukula in a worse light would seem to come down to guesswork.

Quite possibly neither the police nor Kuluka saw any benefit in giving any further details, and the Sun and Mail then only had what happened in court to go on - basically, Kuluka pleading guilty to specific charges, admitting what he'd done in relation to those charges, and offering a defence in mitigation (the merits of which are no doubt open to debate). Or maybe there was more to it that the two papers knew about, but chose to exclude in their coverage, since it didn't fit in with their tabloid agendas? More guesswork.

[AndyTheGrump]

Meanwhile, for those doubting the Daily Mail's credibility as a source for encyclopaedic content, I offer this example of their willingness to give negative coverage all across the political spectrum, in what has to be the ultimate exposé of a right-wing nut-job: link

[Giraffe Stapler]

Slap on the wrist doesn't raise any suspicions for me. Do you have any data on how widespread news coverage is of similar cases there?

I really don't know how other cases have been reported, but considering this is a fairly high-profile person who interacts with the public (including schoolchildren) I would have expected it to be reported more widely. Not an equivalent case at all, but here is some recent reporting. A Google search turned up lots of recent arrests/convictions of men downloading child porn, but mostly in regional papers.

[Without Comfort]

Slap on the wrist doesn't raise any suspicions for me. Do you have any data on how widespread news coverage is of similar cases there?

I really don't know how other cases have been reported, but considering this is a fairly high-profile person who interacts with the public (including schoolchildren) I would have expected it to be reported more widely. Not an equivalent case at all, but here is some recent reporting. A Google search turned up lots of recent arrests/convictions of men downloading child porn, but mostly in regional papers.

Thank you for presenting this information. I might recall SlimVirgin saying the tabloids do a good job on the police blotter beat. In this area a cover-up is also a possibility in my mind. Are you thinking maybe he was framed?

[Giraffe Stapler]

I really don't know how other cases have been reported, but considering this is a fairly high-profile person who interacts with the public (including schoolchildren) I would have expected it to be reported more widely. Not an equivalent case at all, but here is some recent reporting. A Google search turned up lots of recent arrests/convictions of men downloading child porn, but mostly in regional papers.

Thank you for presenting this information. I might recall SlimVirgin saying the tabloids do a good job on the police blotter beat. In this area a cover-up is also a possibility in my mind. Are you thinking maybe he was framed?

I am not saying this guy was framed. I am saying the reports aren't telling enough of the story to make sense of it. Both the Sun and the Daily Mail said he pleaded guilty to "making" child porn images, but it sounds like just he downloaded them. The sentence wouldn't be consistent with making child porn. It isn't clear if the images found on his devices were the images "downloaded and deleted" between 2006 and 2009. It is puzzling to me that the police would raid his home if he only accessed child porn almost a decade ago. I find the judge's comments surprisingly sympathetic, so I wonder if there are aspects that have been left out (such as he had sought treatment for porn addiction between 2009 and his arrest). I just get the feeling that there's more to this story.

I think tabloids pick and choose stories that will appeal to their readers, so sex crimes, grisly murders, etc. Whatever will arouse their readers either sexually or emotionally. Local papers are the best sources for police blotter-type reporting, not tabloids.

[Without Comfort]

I am not saying this guy was framed. I am saying the reports aren't telling enough of the story to make sense of it. Both the Sun and the Daily Mail said he pleaded guilty to "making" child porn images, but it sounds like just he downloaded them. The sentence wouldn't be consistent with making child porn. It isn't clear if the images found on his devices were the images "downloaded and deleted" between 2006 and 2009. It is puzzling to me that the police would raid his home if he only accessed child porn almost a decade ago. I find the judge's comments surprisingly sympathetic, so I wonder if there are aspects that have been left out (such as he had sought treatment for porn addiction between 2009 and his arrest). I just get the feeling that there's more to this story.

I think tabloids pick and choose stories that will appeal to their readers, so sex crimes, grisly murders, etc. Whatever will arouse their readers either sexually or emotionally. Local papers are the best sources for police blotter-type reporting, not tabloids.

Right, gotcha. I'm idly wondering if the local paper has anything.

[Poetlister]

Right, gotcha. I'm idly wondering if the local paper has anything.

I drew a blank. Local papers generally have websites. The three Google searches below yielded nothing relevant.

"marek kukula" site:www.newsshopper.co.uk

"marek kukula" site:standard.co.uk

"marek kukula" site:greenwich.co.uk

[AndyTheGrump]

Both the Sun and the Daily Mail said he pleaded guilty to "making" child porn images, but it sounds like just he downloaded them.

I'm fairly certain that under English law, simply downloading an image to permanent media constitutes 'making a copy' - possession - which is what the charge would most likely constitute. Kukula seems to have claimed that he deleted the offending images as soon as he realised what they were, which might count as mitigating circumstances, if true (and verifiable), but the offence has been committed once you save the image.

Edit: I've looked into this further, and found what I think is the relevant CPS guidance: link

It seems that 'making' and 'possession' are slightly different things. If I understand it right, downloading child pornography and looking at it on a computer screen constitutes 'making an image', whereas 'possession' involves storing it in a way that is accessible later. 'Making' is the lesser charge. If that is correct, there seems to have been sufficient evidence to charge Kuluka with 'making' - he pleaded guilty to this - but maybe not enough to prove 'possession', if he had subsequently deleted them. Presumably there were sufficient traces of the material on the devices seized to show that the images had been on there at some point, but perhaps not to be able to charge him with 'possession' when the devices were seized?

[Ming]

... My point is that if Crow wanted to cause maximum disruption or seriously challenge Wikipedia's deprecation on British tabloids (which has been a constant focus since the creation of TheDarkenedKnight Reddit account in 2017) then he would be much more successful if his attempts weren't so formulaic and wooden, the blatant {{real name}} socks are just so obvious, and when he starts ranting the incredibly long walls of text it's very easy to tell it's him, the sheer length and text style is so distinctive.

I don't think Crow has any rational objective - he's too emotionally unstable and consumed by animosity for anything as intellectual as a strategy.

Well, it's more like once he sinks his teeth into an idea, he's not going to let go of it until forceably shut up. Ming remembers his insistence about how Trump wasn't going to leave the WH willingly, where, upon review, Ming found this prediction:

Curiously enough, it didn't even seem like Holder himself even really knew which branch of law enforcement would be dragging Trump away in the event he refuses to leave, offering up DC Metro, the SS and Tommy Lee Jones as options, all apparently having the ability. Which of course is a recipe for either institutional indecision, or a complete clusterfuck, both of which would play directly into Trump's hands.

I'd say it's more of a recipe for a highly entertaining competition between law enforcement agencies, as to which one can get to the ugly-ass mofo first in order to be seen triumphantly perp-walking the bastard out of the White House. (Oh please oh please make it happen please please please...)

As Ming has noted before, it is the usual thing for spots in DC to have absurd levels of jurisdictional overlap. In this case Ming would probably give the nod to the US Marshals Service, but there's also the White House Police themselves. And really, there's just no chance that Trump would risk such an indignity. If he loses, he'll stand, with his usual frown, all the way through the inauguration, fly down to Florida, and start tweeting about how he was robbed of the election.

(emphasis added)

[Poetlister]

And really, there's just no chance that Trump would risk such an indignity. If he loses, he'll stand, with his usual frown, all the way through the inauguration, fly down to Florida, and start tweeting about how he was robbed of the election.

That wasn't quite right. He didn't attend the Inauguration, the first outgoing president (other than one who'd just died) not to do so for well over a century.

[Giraffe Stapler]

It seems that 'making' and 'possession' are slightly different things. If I understand it right, downloading child pornography and looking at it on a computer screen constitutes 'making an image', whereas 'possession' involves storing it in a way that is accessible later. 'Making' is the lesser charge. If that is correct, there seems to have been sufficient evidence to charge Kuluka with 'making' - he pleaded guilty to this - but maybe not enough to prove 'possession', if he had subsequently deleted them. Presumably there were sufficient traces of the material on the devices seized to show that the images had been on there at some point, but perhaps not to be able to charge him with 'possession' when the devices were seized?

Thanks. To continue this tangent about UK law on indecent images, I found this article helpful. I assume that that "making" is used as a proxy for "viewing" indecent images since it would be difficult to view images without having a copy of them on your device, even temporarily.

[Hemiauchenia]

Crow acknowledging this thread exists under brand new sock Christ the Unredeemer (T-C-L) at User_talk:Christ_the_Unredeemer (T-H-L):

If or when a child is abused because of your inability to get your head around the fact those tabloid reports are true, would you like to be credited with your part in the tragedy as, "Hemiauchenia, enthusiastic Wikipedia editor", or "Hemiauchenia, sceptical Wikipedia editor." I want the news reports to accurately convey your reason for being a Wikipediocracy member. I.e., is it because you actually think Wikipedia has done anything wrong here and want the root cause debated, up to and including Guy Macon's clear wish to misrepresent basic facts to further the cause (and the fact nobody here stops him, because it is convenient for his lies to go unchallenged). Or is your participation there only to retaliate against someone you perceive as an enemy of Wikipedia, for doing nothing more grave than exposing the fact Wikipedia editors as a collective don't want to acknowledge they would rather put kids at risk than examine the accuracy of tabloid reports on an individual basis. I will understand if you don't wish to reply to my message. I would want to stay silent too, if I were in your position. But since I have morals and a conscience, I am not. Yours Christ the Unredeemer

[Vigilant]

What ails the Crow

[Moral Hazard]

Has Crow become Qrow (consciously) yet?

QAnon (T-H-L)

[Without Comfort]

It's easy to sympathize with his desire to have this person's conviction reflected in Wikipedia.

[Vigilant]

Mod note: Split from MetaWatch (link)

---

Crow sticking his beak in...

Delete with prejudice User's real world identity is widely known, as are his views on race and gender. This is most assuredly *not* someone who Meta should be giving a platform to. People have been WMF Globally Banned for far less (the views, not the attempted comedy). Also, not funny. Enough.

NOT that Jimmy, 20:36, 4 December 2021

He's a globally banned user himself, and an actual racist, so this is a truly meta-tastic performance art piece.
Bravo!

I feel for poor crow.

He's an attention vampire and without a certain amount of his nourishment, he starts to shrivel.

Given the population of sucks is Crow and the GoogleBot, he's gotta be getting hangry about now.

[Hemiauchenia]

Who could forget Crow's best/worst sock Krypto Wallace (T-C-L), where he pretended to be black?diff

Hello potential allies. Educated black person here. Thought I should get that out of the way, since we still seem to be in the era when that matters.

What percentage of editors of this project are black, and how does that compare to the demographics of the USA, or even the world? Nobody has to reveal anything they don't want to, it is possible to measure this with surveys.

Crow is a terrible actor, he is simply incapable of playing a character other than himself. He makes Icewhiz frankly look like Daniel Day-Lewis by comparison.

[MadManz]

I feel for poor crow.

He's an attention vampire and without a certain amount of his nourishment, he starts to shrivel.

Given the population of sucks is Crow and the GoogleBot, he's gotta be getting hangry about now.

+ GRP

https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewfor ... 3293f32930

[Smiley]

Who could forget Crow's best sock Krypto Wallace (T-C-L), where he pretended to be black?diff

I asked him about that a few days ago. His response for what it's worth:

on Wikipedia, Nobody Knows You're Not A Dog. They say that, blind to the racist overtones of assuming people are dogs until prove otherwise.

I'm guessing you want them to verify their black status, right? Wear a little badge. Send their black identity papers to your mate Beeblebrox, up there in Alaska.

You can be privy to the SECRETS of my clandestine group. We meet Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Until then, know your place. Under my boot, ya wee prick. That's right, whitey. It's reparations time!

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 307#p21217

[Hemiauchenia]

Who could forget Crow's best sock Krypto Wallace (T-C-L), where he pretended to be black?diff

I asked him about that a few days ago. His response for what it's worth:

on Wikipedia, Nobody Knows You're Not A Dog. They say that, blind to the racist overtones of assuming people are dogs until prove otherwise.

I'm guessing you want them to verify their black status, right? Wear a little badge. Send their black identity papers to your mate Beeblebrox, up there in Alaska.

You can be privy to the SECRETS of my clandestine group. We meet Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Until then, know your place. Under my boot, ya wee prick. That's right, whitey. It's reparations time!

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 307#p21217

Typical Crow. He always bends over backwards in every post he makes to justify himself and to find whatever angle he thinks is the best to attack Wikipedia or his opponents, and would never admit that he has ever been hypocritical or wrong. He can't even openly admit to operating the socks that are so obviously him, when at other times he recalls interactions he has had with Wikipedia users when using them.

One of the most bizarre episodes of Crow's power fantasy daydreaming was when he claimed on Reddit (as JacktheJiller) that he was being paid substantial sums of money to get the Daily Mail unblocked: :https://www.reddit.com/r/RealWikiInActi ... _reliable/

They are allowed to make obviously false statements on Wikipedia, proveably false and wholly defamatory, but the powers that be at Wikipedia, because they have no regulator, and no real interest in being seen to have a role in how Wikipedia decides who can and cannot be an Administrator, have overseen a situation where your only real remedy is to sue. Which probably explains why my bank account is getting bigger and bigger.

[Vigilant]

He's almost certainly living on the dole in some tenement housing.

[Jim]

I feel for poor crow.

He's an attention vampire and without a certain amount of nourishment, he starts to shrivel.

[Vigilant]

Even Eric has had enough of his Abd-esque verbal diarrhea.

[Moral Hazard]

Even Eric has had enough of his Abd-esque verbal diarrhea.

I laughed out loud.

The boy with the thorn in his side (T-H-L)
Behind the hatred, there lies
A murderous desire for love

How can they look into my eyes
And still they don't believe me?
How can they hear me say those words
Still they don't believe me?
And if they don't believe me now
Will they ever believe me?

https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtop ... 315#p21303

A Rick Astley (T-H-L) performance takes it from 1 to 2 Michelin stars.
*Chef's kiss*

Rog is hilarious.

I do not know much about Eric Barbour, but there is one thing I do know:
He responds well to lunatics telling him to piss off on his own forum.

[Smiley]

Merci beaucoup!

Obviously Morrissey was a no-go, since he's cancelled up the wazoo; Rick's version seemed like the ideal replacement. It's a bit stage-showy, but a good effort, glad to see him fully rehabilitated. If I was being mean, I'd have linked to the Belle & Sebastian version which does at least one thing exceedingly well: demonstrate just how hard it is to sing like Moz.

[Moral Hazard]

Stay you, Great Britain.
Never change.

[Moral Hazard]

link

Some of your replies to my stuff are cringeworthy in how out of date and how out of touch you are with Wikipedia of 2021.

I let it lie, your less than helpful contributions, because I'm a nice guy.

Don't piss me off.

[Vigilant]

I love that his posts are filled with semi-relevant emojis.

Brings back memories of the unlamented Giraffe Stapler.

How long before Crow starts using reams of multi-colored text to really drive the point of his diatribes home?

[Smiley]

I do not know much about Eric Barbour, but there is one thing I do know:
He responds well to lunatics telling him to piss off on his own forum.

Eric can't ban Crow. They are living in codependent cloudcuckooland, chained together forever.

[Vigilant]

I do not know much about Eric Barbour, but there is one thing I do know:
He responds well to lunatics telling him to piss off on his own forum.

Eric can't ban Crow. They are living in codependent cloudcuckooland, chained together forever.

Eric lacks the sack to do something that direct.
He's very Trumpian in that regard.

Edit: Just saw the sucks Christmas lights post. Bravo.

[Smiley]

Just saw the sucks Christmas lights post. Bravo.

I think he's mocking you there maybe? Joe Crow is almost certainly Crow's alt account.

It always upvotes his posts...

And it stuck up for Crow here...

[Smiley]

Looks like we have our answer:

Joe Crow is definitely Crow's alt account

[The Garbage Scow]

Toxic narcissism....

[Smiley]

Toxic narcissism....

Yeah I know, sorry, I can't help it! But Crow's nearly as bad!

[Ming]

Ming has to love his self-assessment in this explanation of why he hates WO:

Being an expert critic, lauded by members of all venues and stripes in my time, I of course not only know the broad strokes, I know the fucking dirty details.