Lies, Lies, Lies, Yeah, With apologies to the Thompson Twins Options

The sheer audacity and volume of lies being spewed forth by the folks on WikiEN-L these days are really something to behold! Just when you think they can't possibly get any more egregiously dishonest and hyperbolic, they turn it up another notch!

I am of the view that being a good Wikipedia (sic) is, at this time, fundamentally incompatible with playing any active part on Wikipedia Review, because WR has as its goal to undermine and damage Wikipedia, not to improve it, and because the power and influence there is largely in the hands of determined abusers of Wikipedia. People like Awbrey, Bagley, Barber.

Total Lie. None of these three are moderators, much less administrators here - and although Mr. Awbrey posts quite frequently, I'd hardly call him "influential." Mr. "Barber," whom we prefer to refer to as "Looch" because we care about the privacy of mostly-innocent people, hasn't posted anything whatsoever in months.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/085031.html

Then do more analysing before pitching into this one again, eh? For example, are you aware that Amorrow was jailed?

Far be it from me to defend Mr. Morrow, who didn't last anywhere near as long here as he did on Wikipedia, but jailed? For what, pray tell? There's nothing whatsoever about this that's obtainable by a search on his name, so where is he getting this supposed information?

When I was in school, I had a teacher who insisted that if you were going to say something bad about someone, you had to cite a source, even if that person was dead, and even if you were just asking if the bad thing were true (which always struck me as a bit of a Catch-22, but anyhoo)... I thought Wikipedia had rules about citing sources for things, but apparently they don't apply to User:JzG. And given his propensity for lying, I would have to assume this is just yet another one.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/085047.html

Right now he's apparently stalking a prominent female chess player.

"Apparently" stalking? But he seemed so sure when he claimed that he'd been thrown in jail...

I took the trouble to actually look this up, and the chess player, Susan Polgar, received a very nasty blog comment from Morrow well over a year ago. It isn't particularly clear, but apparently this was in reaction to an incident involving another chess player, Sam_Sloan, who had claimed that Polgar and her manager/husband, Paul Truong, had posted multiple fake blog comments that effectively libeled him and prevented him from winning the presidency of the United States Chess Federation. He didn't get very far with the accusations, though. Anyway, the nature of the relationship between Sloan and Morrow is unclear - they may be friends IRL, I suppose - but either way, it's the only explanation that makes much sense.

A concern about anyone hanging out with the WR crowd is that they have no regard for the truth and are good at manipulation. It's not a healthy environment in the least...

"No regard" for the truth, eh? "Good at manipulation?" So why do I have such problems finding attractive women who want me solely for my amazingly sexy body?

I'd say we have at least as much regard for the truth as Mr. Morven does, at least. Unfortunately, that may not be saying much:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/084990.html

Wikipedia Review participants have proven themselves quite willing to try and get people fired from their jobs, for instance, simply because the person was a Wikipedia admin - even in cases when they had no conflict with the person themselves.

Total Lie. This has, quite simply, never happened. I defy Morven or anyone else to even cite one instance, much less prove it. And if he's referring to Katefan0 or Phil Sandifer, he'll have to come up with an example that actually fits the accusation, and didn't involve a simple request for an apology, or a prank.

The people we are dealing with, such as Brandt, Bagley and Barber will stop at nothing until they get precisely what they want out of Wikipedia or destroy the project.

Ridiculous. And how, exactly, do they intend to achieve these goals? By getting one BLP article deleted? By exposing one sock puppeteer who uses Wikipedia to promote a questionable investment strategy? Or by writing articles about obscure professional wrestling promoters that don't meet notability standards, and then getting really nasty when they're deleted?

Boy, that sure sounds like a fabulous plan for destroying one of the world's most popular websites! Dang, why didn't I think of those?

Spend too much time on WR and you'll forget what these people have tried to do to Wikipedia and the lives they've ruined in the process.

Just how many "lives" have we people "ruined," I wonder? I can't think of any... Can anyone else think of any? Maybe this is yet another... Total Lie? Though I can actually think of a few lives Wikipedia has ruined, though of course it would probably depend on how you define "ruined." I guess JoshuaZ's definition of "ruined" is slightly inconvenienced while doing the ol' social-networking thang on the computer.

And there's this, in relation to WP's "methods" of hunting down sock puppet accounts:

Some of them are not going to be discussed openly. They are known well enough to the people who are working the cases. It's best not to tell some people how they tip their hands.

Hmm. Why not just come right out and say, "we determine this based solely on appearances alone"? Then you wouldn't have to keep lying out your asses, right? You might even get something useful done "for the encyclopaedia."

If you wish to use that framework, you are welcome to. If it is a battle, it is a battle between those who wish to provide free, neutral information to humanity and those who would see that goal either thwarted or perverted.

Wrong again, robot-boy! How about a battle between those who wish to preserve the tradition of high-quality, professionally-produced reference materials against the army of hacks, vicious nerds, and POV pushers who are threatening to destroy it? That's how I prefer to look at it, anyway.

But that's just me.

For the record, here are my goals:

Objectives

My primary objective is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.

My secondary objective is to examine the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by any given policy, culture, or organizational architecture.

My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are demonstrably falling short of best practices.

A very nice collection Somey, no doubt we will be adding to it every time they throw another lie out there.

In Guy's eyes then, those among us who are Wikipedia editors and admins will soon be targets to be eliminated, after all if they are posting here they aren't being good Wikipedians are they.

And as for the battle JoshuaZ speaks of, it seems this "battle" or as I like to see it a "war of attrition" will only be decided by which side breaks first or which side runs out of necessary funds, methinks it won't be us, especially since many of us believe it is our solemn duty to expose the corruption and dangers of Wikipedia.

For the record, here are my goals:

Objectives

My primary objective is to achieve a respectable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media, especially when the subject at hand is an identifiable living person.

My secondary objective is to examine the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product achieved by any given policy, culture, or organizational architecture.

My tertiary objective is to identify and propose functional improvements to systems that are demonstrably falling short of best practices.

Thread discipline is just going all to hell in hand basket.

Holy cats, I forgot this one!

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/085053.html

Additionally we do have the problem that WR makes extensive use of logs and other data to track who is going there, and discusses it openly, speculating on who the visitors are, so there is a serious privacy concern for Wikipedians who click on links in debates.

Total, outright, complete lie. This is such a huge lie, it should probably be called something else, so as not to give lies a needlessly bad name!

Naturally, I defy anyone, anywhere, at any time, to find and post links to this "open discussion" of "who" our visitors are according to the site's access logs, as if it were even possible to determine identities based on IP addresses alone! The only people who can look at those logs are Selina and myself... Selina comes around about once a week (though a bit more recently, God bless her), and I haven't bothered to even look at any access logs since July, much less post details about them.

However, I do have a standing offer for the WP'ers: If they'll send me a list of IP addresses for a person whom we've been saying is a victim of an abusive ban for sock puppetry - say, User:Runcorn - I'll check not only the raw access logs, but our registration and posting data too, and if there are matches that aren't proxies, I'll stop pointing out their massive hypocrisy and general shittiness about it forever.

I'd say it's pretty safe to make that offer, don't you?

And not all of us are banned and some like Somey have never edited on WP.

It is very difficult to say that there is coordination on this forum. It would not be right to say "WR is out to get WP" but rather "Certain individuals on WR are out to get WP." I try not to say the royal we too much on this forum lest I'm told "Who's 'we,' white man?"

I am not against an online encyclopedia. I am not against a free online encyclopedia. But as a reader and consumer, I want to know if I have a good product. I have the utmost sympathy for those who sincerely try to collaborate and get the facts right. There are too many flaws in WP, however, caused by a bad system and bad apples.

If you read down the "Featured editors?" thread more, you'll see Durova compare us to the backwards people who called Galileo's theories "witchcraft." I'm not in a great mood to discuss the historical inaccuracies there (and this isn't the place to discuss historical inaccuracies anyway), but I take umbrage with characterizing me and a few others here of wanting to destroy the concept of a free online encyclopedia. WP can either reform (which some here think is possible) or be replaced by something far better.

It is very difficult to say that there is coordination on this forum.

A prerequisite to coordination is an overarching objective.

As near as I can tell, no such overarching objective has ever been stated or agreed to.

Guy Chapman appears to be gunning for SlimVirgin's title as Pathological Liar Of The First Order («PLOTFO»). Indeed, he would already have her beat if it were not for the fact that such a large fraction of his fractious line of Wiki-Prevarication is so totally derivative on her old material.

But that is the not the most disturbing thing, as a performance like that is just the norm for Guy.

The most schlocking thing is the dimwitted reaction of his audience, on the Wikienlist and Wikipedia both. The fact that they suck up his lies without even thinking to ask for concrete evidence — not to mention the fact that ordinary Wikipeons get tossed out on their rears for doing 1% of the damage and dumbage that he does every day — now that is the Truly Remarkable Phenom.

Jonny

*off-topic

I remember exactly what song the topic is referring to!

The most schlocking thing is the dimwitted reaction of his audience, on the Wikienlist and Wikipedia both. The fact that they suck up his lies without even thinking to ask for concrete evidence — not to mention the fact that ordinary Wikipeons get tossed out on their rears for doing 1% of the damage and dumbage that he does every day — now that is the Truly Remarkable Phenom.

Do you think they're just worn out? Sick of constantly hearing it, unable to make any kind of rational counter-argument that won't get them shouted down and accused of "trolling," and just hoping, desperately, that if they ignore him he'll eventually shut the hell up?

I seem to recall one person - "Steve Summit"? - posting something that reflected that possibility, but obviously he's talking to a brick wall... Although brick walls are usually much more honest, I suppose. And it's impossible not to notice how methodical they've been about the gradual demonization of Mr. Tobias - that's almost fully achieved at this point, isn't it? Funny, I never thought I'd end up feeling sorry for him!

I've always tried to avoid getting too heavily into defending our right to exist, because the mere act of defending it makes it seem like they might have some sort of point, but it's like they all woke up this morning with a coordinated plan to post unusually nasty lies about us. Why, it's almost like... a massive conspiracy!

They seem to view WR as some sort of one organized body with a bunch of people who think alike and are all there to get WP down.

The most schlocking thing is the dimwitted reaction of his audience, on the Wikienlist and Wikipedia both. The fact that they suck up his lies without even thinking to ask for concrete evidence — not to mention the fact that ordinary Wikipeons get tossed out on their rears for doing 1% of the damage and dumbage that he does every day — now that is the Truly Remarkable Phenom.

Do you think they're just worn out? Sick of constantly hearing it, unable to make any kind of rational counter-argument that won't get them shouted down and accused of "trolling," and just hoping, desperately, that if they ignore him he'll eventually shut the hell up?

I seem to recall one person — "Steve Summit"? — posting something that reflected that possibility, but obviously he's talking to a brick wall … Although brick walls are usually much more honest, I suppose. And it's impossible not to notice how methodical they've been about the gradual demonization of Mr. Tobias — that's almost fully achieved at this point, isn't it? Funny, I never thought I'd end up feeling sorry for him!

I've always tried to avoid getting too heavily into defending our right to exist, because the mere act of defending it makes it seem like they might have some sort of point, but it's like they all woke up this morning with a coordinated plan to post unusually nasty lies about us. Why, it's almost like — a massive conspiracy!

Maybe it has something to do with the peculiar mix of subcultures in which I tried to grow up as a kid. I think that I've always understood about the {{Insert Name Of Your Ravourfite Hate Group Here}} — they are just trying to make the world safe for their peculiar Form Of Ignorance (FOI). In doing that they are remarkably consistent in a coarse practical sense — though not of course in any kind of logical sense, since their actions belie the noble-sounding public half of their rhetoric. What I have never understood, though, is all the "good people" who stand by and let the parade of broomsticks turn into the parade of guns, as they really know it will someday. If I were to gauge matters solely by the gap between action and belief, then I guess I would be forced to accord even less respect for the spectators than I do for the {{Insert Name Of Your Ravourfite Hate Group Here}}.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 13th November 2007, 12:30pm

Poor Guy, he just tries so hard to build himself up, but he always forgets that IRL you can't just plan your information on WP to make things so. Putting the Ipod business aside for a minute, Guy has this thing for the French organist Marie-Claire Alain. He has even claimed to have met her on this page, has added a connection to an English Organ festival where he works as a volunteer. (Conflict of interest, Guy? You should at least add sources...)

Anyway, I happen to know her. I asked her whether she knew of a Guy Chapman and even showed her his photo on the web. She doesn't remember him at all, even after I showed her the connection to this festival.

So, I wonder whether or not Mr. Chapman is able to tell the difference between his fantasies or reality? Or whether he lives in a world populated by the contents of his Ipod, various cameos by Big Bust models and his bicycle helmet?

In any case, Mr. Chapman deserves our pity, rather than our anger.

Who are the people on WR banned by WP for trying to destroy it? Poetlister, who is an admin on another Wiikimedia project? Taxwoman, who was made an admin on Wikinfo by Fred Bauder? Maybe the powers that be on Wikimedia should get their act together.

I took the trouble to actually look this up, and the chess player, Susan Polgar, received a very nasty blog comment from Morrow well over a year ago. It isn't particularly clear, but apparently this was in reaction to an incident involving another chess player, Sam_Sloan, who had claimed that Polgar and her manager/husband, Paul Truong, had posted multiple fake blog comments that effectively libeled him and prevented him from winning the presidency of the United States Chess Federation. He didn't get very far with the accusations, though. Anyway, the nature of the relationship between Sloan and Morrow is unclear - they may be friends IRL, I suppose - but either way, it's the only explanation that makes much sense.

Sloan was recently blocked by Viridae because of his lawsuit against Polgar, Troung and another WP editor.
Amorrow apparently knows Sloan well. He created his bio, and used various sockpuppets since he was banned to maintain it. Some of those edits were rolled back recently, though. There's a long-running conversation between the two on Sloan's talk page. This passage is particularly telling.

Oh! I should NEVER have downloaded her picture (before she removed it from her uesr page). 26 years old an super-duper cute. I have removed her photo from my hard drive forever. I struggle, just as William Chester Minor did, so long ago

They seem to view WR as some sort of one organized body with a bunch of people who think alike and are all there to get WP down.

Projection.

They're like that, so they assume WR is.

They're wrong, of course, but that doesn't stop them from twisting reality to suit their theories.

I took the trouble to actually look this up, and the chess player, Susan Polgar, received a very nasty blog comment from Morrow well over a year ago. It isn't particularly clear, but apparently this was in reaction to an incident involving another chess player, Sam_Sloan, who had claimed that Polgar and her manager/husband, Paul Truong, had posted multiple fake blog comments that effectively libeled him and prevented him from winning the presidency of the United States Chess Federation. He didn't get very far with the accusations, though. Anyway, the nature of the relationship between Sloan and Morrow is unclear - they may be friends IRL, I suppose - but either way, it's the only explanation that makes much sense.

Sloan was recently blocked by Viridae because of his lawsuit against Polgar, Troung and another WP editor.
Amorrow apparently knows Sloan well. He created his bio, and used various sockpuppets since he was banned to maintain it. Some of those edits were rolled back recently, though. There's a long-running conversation between the two on Sloan's talk page. This passage is particularly telling.

Oh! I should NEVER have downloaded her picture (before she removed it from her uesr page). 26 years old an super-duper cute. I have removed her photo from my hard drive forever. I struggle, just as William Chester Minor did, so long ago

This guy is a most repellent creep, as evidenced by his likening himself to William Chestor Minor

William Chester Minor, also known as W. C. Minor (June 1834 – March 26, 1920) was an American surgeon who made many scholarly contributions to the Oxford English Dictionary while confined to a lunatic asylum.

Strange how my ultimate reaction to that thread was the polar opposite of what I expected going into it. Meaning, Somey's summary had me thinking I was going to come away disliking Guy Chapman even more, but in fact I'm truly beginning to feel pity for him. That dude is tormented, and it's probably incapacitating.

No, I regard the current high-profile WR crowd, notably Bagley (user WordBomb), Barber (user JB196 / WR user Looch) and Awbrey (WR user Jonny Cache) as enemies of the project.

Please be honest: does anybody here consider my profile to be a "high" one? In 15 months I've posted 157 times. In slightly less time, "Awbrey" has posted about 3,500 times. Even the two-week old newcomer Moulton beats me by over 100 posts (and counting). I've always considered myself to be a bit of a low-grade lurker here...so much so I don't even know who fellow high profile enemy of WP "Barber/JB196/Looch" is.

Anyway, I have to assume others on that list are getting a sense of Guy's growing break with reality. As I've said here before: Guy, get help, and then try to be nicer.

the two-week old newcomer Moulton

It's only been two weeks?

Seems more like a lifetime.

Even if it's now been demonstrated that ontogeny doesn't recapitulate phylogeny.

Please be honest: does anybody here consider my profile to be a "high" one? In 15 months I've posted 157 times. In slightly less time, "Awbrey" has posted about 3,500 times. Even the two-week old newcomer Moulton beats me by over 100 posts (and counting). I've always considered myself to be a bit of a low-grade lurker here...so much so I don't even know who fellow high profile enemy of WP "Barber/JB196/Looch" is.

Anyway, I have to assume others on that list are getting a sense of Guy's growing break with reality. As I've said here before: Guy, get help, and then try to be nicer.

At least a high quality lurker. You certainly would be welcomed to post more.