To Appeal a Ban or Not? Options

[Ottava]

As many of you know, 6 months have passed and I did nothing to appeal my ban. So, I will pose the question on if I should or other suggestions to this community mostly to deal with the philosophy behind such.

Now, to set things straight - I would like to produce content, so any situation without that (i.e. something GBG would most likely argue) would be off topic.

Here is how I view the situation:

Almost from day one, I was bullied and harassed by many users that would use various aspects of Wikipedia to try and do me harm. They had powerful friends who would help them sock and have done everything to out me, send out email attacks, etc.

Once I was banned, many of those people vanished. They no longer had a purpose on Wikipedia as they only had any kind of "power" through attacking me, and when they tried to go after others they were quickly stopped. Their methods and means were exposed. It is not a coincidence that those like Moreschi and Folantin dramatically stopped editing, and when the massive plagiarism by various members of that group was pointed out, those like Antandrus and the rest stopped even bothering with content (the content was plagiarised as they were unable to legitimately put up any, but used it as an excuse to gain influence to better harm others).

Now, I was able to continue producing content without having to sock or do anything inappropriate on Wikipedia. I managed to create three pages:

* Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard
* Kubla Khan
* Ode: Intimations of Immortality

Through donating them instead of adding them myself, I lack even the pitiful amount of control I had on them before. However, I also lack the responsibility to really upkeep them or deal with them. Thus, I could put forth a lot of material, get the credit, then move on. I also don't have to worry about the almost constant harassment, bad blocks, etc, while writing, so I am able to sit down and write without some new guy spamming up my email or talk page with attacks.

If I was unbanned at Wiki, of course there would be some new "restriction". That would mean that it would be a pre-set "weakness" for those who would bully me in some masturbatory sadistic manner to exploit. I could have more control to put forth my material through GAN or FAC, but when you see pages like Ernest Hemingway being passed even though its writing is absolutely grammatically flawed and awful, such standards are not as good as they once were.

I would gain part of my "reputation", but half of my block log were false blocks or the rest (including Arbitrator Shell.kinney's indef for "legal threats" because I told her in email that her email harassment and cussing at me was highly inappropriate and that I was forwarding it to ArbCom and people at the WMF) and they would stay there, giving people more justification to harass me.

So really, what motivation is there for me to even bother? I haven't socked, but is there even motivation not to do any of that? The people in power either don't produce content or have heavily plagiarised, so what motivation is there for me to even respect and/or trust them to know how to handle an encyclopedia? And, when they put forth someone like LessHeard up for a privilege that would require a lot of trust, how can we honestly believe they really know what trust is or who the right people are?

I mean, come on, he is one of the nastiest, most abusive people who has abused his block ability to cause tons of drama and bring about lots of harm to people, and he use to create various pictures dealing with real life images in order to harass his enemies. And ArbCom believes -he- is trustworthy yet bans me because 1. I put up a guy for CU because an IP was tag teaming with him and from his same region, 2. I said a person at Britannica was not respected, 3. I argued on a Linguistics topic even though I was even editing a dissertation at the time on the very statement I was arguing about, and 4. believed that Moreschi and Folantin were tag teaming when they had over 200 shared AfDs where no other person at AfD had that many matches let alone had a 100% rate of agreement there? I'm ban worthy, but his three years of tyranny is worthy of giving him another privilege to cause even more harm to?

As I see it, the chips are in my favor. I am able to produce content. Those who spent two years harassing me are unable to continue to use Wikipedia to do that. I am no longer connected to the hierarchy that is proved to be corrupt, plagiaristic, and unable to determine legitimate people who deserve to be trusted.

So why should I even bother grovelling to be unbanned? I'd love to see someone try to put forth even just one reason. I don't think one exists!



Edit to add:
I do appreciate the support on my user talk page, with the dozen or so others who signed in other parts of that page and expressed elsewhere. But seriously, this is the ArbCom that thought they should give the corrupt Everyking ops simply to shut him up when he deserved to be banned instead.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[A Horse With No Name]

So why should I even bother grovelling to be unbanned?

Arbcom is not good enough to clean your toilet, Ottava. Really, don't waste your time with them. You could be doing far more academically enriching endeavors than trying to win the favor of old granny Risker and her fat boys. And for what purpose? To inject yourself back into that maelstrom of idiot children, idiot adults and a madhouse environment?

[Somey]

So why should I even bother grovelling to be unbanned? I'd love to see someone try to put forth even just one reason. I don't think one exists!

I know for a fact that none exist. (Or, since it's somewhat objective, we could say that I personally am 100 percent certain than none exist.)

As for the rest, I'd been wondering why all those long-term WP'ers reduced their activity to such an extent... Clearly, the fact that they'd probably started as college students and have since graduated, now having to deal with the demands imposed by careers, social activities and even families couldn't possibly have had anything to do with it. Nor could it have been related to the fact that Wikipedia has become tedious and mired in petty bureaucracy and rule-mongering (after all, from our perspective it was always that way). No, clearly it must have been all about the obsessive conspiratorial campaign to troll the much-despised User:Ottava_rima - so if Mr. Ottava grovels to be unbanned, it only helps to seal their ultimate victory, doesn't it? That would be bad, IMO.

[Jon Awbrey]

As many of you know, 6 months have passed and I did nothing to appeal my ban. So, I will pose the question on if I should or other suggestions to this community mostly to deal with the philosophy behind such.

Sure, go ahead, be our geist — we're really running out of yucks around here.

I can hardly wait to bash you over the head everyday with

What A Maroon (WAM) you are.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bash.gif) WAM (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bash.gif) WAM (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bash.gif) WAM (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bash.gif)

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[dogbiscuit]

FWIW, Ottava, if you really believe getting involved in Wikipedia is worth the grief, I would suggest that you seek permission to return under an entirely different unknown user name (right to disappear and all that crap).

However, I suspect that this alternate user would still run into trouble, because what gets you into trouble is not your knowledge, interests or even your opinions, but the belligerent way you express yourself. Sometimes you need to play the long game - instead of trying to win every argument, learn to let things go to win friends and influence people. Put another way, right or wrong, at the moment I am sure people fight you on Wikipedia simply because of the way you work on Wikipedia - and no judgement of whether you are right or wrong in those arguments applies.

I am a great believer that loss of face applies as strongly in the Western world as in the East, it is just people don't formally acknowledge it. Take a leaf out of that book, and you learn that if you care to, you can win by accepting faults rather than placing blame. A simple example is when someone clearly does not understand something you have explained is that you apologise for not making yourself clear rather than blaming the other person for being stupid. One way you create resentment, the other way, you have opened up a way forward - and it might actually be true too, because then it challenges you to restate the issue in a clearer way.

If you accept there is an element of gamesmanship to being involved in Wikipedia, then setting up a different persona where you do not have to feel your own reputation is on the line over every minor point (given that you clearly strongly identify the Ottava persona with yourself) might help you come up with a different strategy for succeeding on Wikipedia without feeling you have compromised your integrity.

[GlassBeadGame]

As many of you know, 6 months have passed and I did nothing to appeal my ban. So, I will pose the question on if I should or other suggestions to this community mostly to deal with the philosophy behind such.

Now, to set things straight - I would like to produce content, so any situation without that (i.e. something GBG would most likely argue) would be off topic.

Here is how I view the situation:

Almost from day one, I was bullied and harassed by many users that would use various aspects of Wikipedia to try and do me harm. They had powerful friends who would help them sock and have done everything to out me, send out email attacks, etc.

Once I was banned, many of those people vanished. They no longer had a purpose on Wikipedia as they only had any kind of "power" through attacking me, and when they tried to go after others they were quickly stopped. Their methods and means were exposed. It is not a coincidence that those like Moreschi and Folantin dramatically stopped editing, and when the massive plagiarism by various members of that group was pointed out, those like Antandrus and the rest stopped even bothering with content (the content was plagiarised as they were unable to legitimately put up any, but used it as an excuse to gain influence to better harm others).

Now, I was able to continue producing content without having to sock or do anything inappropriate on Wikipedia. I managed to create three pages:

* Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard
* Kubla Khan
* Ode: Intimations of Immortality

Through donating them instead of adding them myself, I lack even the pitiful amount of control I had on them before. However, I also lack the responsibility to really upkeep them or deal with them. Thus, I could put forth a lot of material, get the credit, then move on. I also don't have to worry about the almost constant harassment, bad blocks, etc, while writing, so I am able to sit down and write without some new guy spamming up my email or talk page with attacks.

If I was unbanned at Wiki, of course there would be some new "restriction". That would mean that it would be a pre-set "weakness" for those who would bully me in some masturbatory sadistic manner to exploit. I could have more control to put forth my material through GAN or FAC, but when you see pages like Ernest Hemingway being passed even though its writing is absolutely grammatically flawed and awful, such standards are not as good as they once were.

I would gain part of my "reputation", but half of my block log were false blocks or the rest (including Arbitrator Shell.kinney's indef for "legal threats" because I told her in email that her email harassment and cussing at me was highly inappropriate and that I was forwarding it to ArbCom and people at the WMF) and they would stay there, giving people more justification to harass me.

So really, what motivation is there for me to even bother? I haven't socked, but is there even motivation not to do any of that? The people in power either don't produce content or have heavily plagiarised, so what motivation is there for me to even respect and/or trust them to know how to handle an encyclopedia? And, when they put forth someone like LessHeard up for a privilege that would require a lot of trust, how can we honestly believe they really know what trust is or who the right people are?

I mean, come on, he is one of the nastiest, most abusive people who has abused his block ability to cause tons of drama and bring about lots of harm to people, and he use to create various pictures dealing with real life images in order to harass his enemies. And ArbCom believes -he- is trustworthy yet bans me because 1. I put up a guy for CU because an IP was tag teaming with him and from his same region, 2. I said a person at Britannica was not respected, 3. I argued on a Linguistics topic even though I was even editing a dissertation at the time on the very statement I was arguing about, and 4. believed that Moreschi and Folantin were tag teaming when they had over 200 shared AfDs where no other person at AfD had that many matches let alone had a 100% rate of agreement there? I'm ban worthy, but his three years of tyranny is worthy of giving him another privilege to cause even more harm to?

As I see it, the chips are in my favor. I am able to produce content. Those who spent two years harassing me are unable to continue to use Wikipedia to do that. I am no longer connected to the hierarchy that is proved to be corrupt, plagiaristic, and unable to determine legitimate people who deserve to be trusted.

So why should I even bother grovelling to be unbanned? I'd love to see someone try to put forth even just one reason. I don't think one exists!



Edit to add:
I do appreciate the support on my user talk page, with the dozen or so others who signed in other parts of that page and expressed elsewhere. But seriously, this is the ArbCom that thought they should give the corrupt Everyking ops simply to shut him up when he deserved to be banned instead.

The important things is to show that you've learned and grown from your experience. Put special emphasis on your willingness to comply with their reasonable concern about wire hangers.

[Somey]

If you accept there is an element of gamesmanship to being involved in Wikipedia, then setting up a different persona where you do not have to feel your own reputation is on the line over every minor point (given that you clearly strongly identify the Ottava persona with yourself) might help you come up with a different strategy for succeeding on Wikipedia without feeling you have compromised your integrity.

Mr. Dogbiscuit is very wise!

Another way of looking at it might be this: On Wikipedia, you can gain reputational capital by writing good material, but you spend reputational capital by getting into any sort of dispute, even if someone else is "to blame" for the dispute. Like it or not, you're seriously in the red in terms of reputational capital, despite having written several Featured Articles. This, in turn, is what makes Wikipedia so frustrating for people with real editorial talent - you want to be recognized for that talent, but instead, the thing that makes a truly successful Wikipedian is one's "ability to handle oneself," which often has little or nothing to do with writing ability.

Even if that weren't the case though, there would still be no good reason to grovel to be unbanned. If you have to go back, which you don't, do what Mr. Dogbiscuit suggests - it's probably the only way for someone to advance in the WP game, assuming that's the objective here. Otherwise you're just treading water while trying to hold a suitcase full of bricks.

[Ottava]

Mr. Dogbiscuit is very wise!

Another way of looking at it might be this: On Wikipedia, you can gain reputational capital by writing good material, but you spend reputational capital by getting into any sort of dispute, even if someone else is "to blame" for the dispute. Like it or not, you're seriously in the red in terms of reputational capital, despite having written several Featured Articles. This, in turn, is what makes Wikipedia so frustrating for people with real editorial talent - you want to be recognized for that talent, but instead, the thing that makes a truly successful Wikipedian is one's "ability to handle oneself," which often has little or nothing to do with writing ability.

Even if that weren't the case though, there would still be no good reason to grovel to be unbanned. If you have to go back, which you don't, do what Mr. Dogbiscuit suggests - it's probably the only way for someone to advance in the WP game, assuming that's the objective here. Otherwise you're just treading water while trying to hold a suitcase full of bricks.

Somey, that could work if I was someone like Unitanode, who was allowed to have at least 7 different account names merely because he would use those accounts as toss away attack dogs to help position people into power.

I, however, could not do such a thing, nor do I have people who are willing to allow me to "clean start".

Furthermore, the reason why I am there is to produce content as part of who I am. That means that my work is intimately tied to my real life identity. If I were to start as a new name, I lose that. However, as banned I am still able to produce content tied to me.

I don't want to play their game. I never have nor I ever will. That could be why there is so much hostility between me and certain people. I could sock right now like many of those people do, as proven by Unitanode, Geogre, etc, or I could create socks like Peter or Kohs. I don't believe in it nor would it benefit me as my goal is to produce content connected to my name so it would hinder me.

Now, as for your statement about the people vanishing and maybe they got a life:

I was banned in December, which is not at the end of the year. The people in question, as I pointed out in email, were those who would probably still be in school for two or three more years, or were retired and devoted tons of time. They most likely lost interest in the "game" of Wikipedia sometime in 2008 and were only fueled onwards by their desire to "win" against someone like me.

Hatred is a strong motivator, and without me to use as a whipping boy there is nothing left for them (some have moved onto other favored targets, like Malleus et al, though).


Edit to add: Iridescent, I'm suggesting they got bored as their play toy is gone.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Eva Destruction]

I was banned in December, which is not at the end of the year. The people in question, as I pointed out in email, were those who would probably still be in school for two or three more years, or were retired and devoted tons of time. They most likely lost interest in the "game" of Wikipedia sometime in 2008 and were only fueled onwards by their desire to "win" against someone like me.

Hatred is a strong motivator.

Which is more likely; "people get bored after a while and move on to other things" or "the entire world is engaged in a vast conspiracy to prevent you from sharing The Truth"?

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction:

[Milton Roe]

FWIW, Ottava, if you really believe getting involved in Wikipedia is worth the grief, I would suggest that you seek permission to return under an entirely different unknown user name (right to disappear and all that crap).

However, I suspect that this alternate user would still run into trouble, because what gets you into trouble is not your knowledge, interests or even your opinions, but the belligerent way you express yourself. Sometimes you need to play the long game - instead of trying to win every argument, learn to let things go to win friends and influence people. Put another way, right or wrong, at the moment I am sure people fight you on Wikipedia simply because of the way you work on Wikipedia - and no judgement of whether you are right or wrong in those arguments applies.

Yah. To put this another way, perhaps you and SkagitRiverQueen should get a room, ala No Exit. And don't come out till you can play nice with other editors on Wikipedia.

And I suggest you do NOT trade usernames.

Perhaps SkagitRiverRima would do. Or OttavaQueen.

[A Horse With No Name]

Hatred is a strong motivator

That's why I advocate making love instead of war.

There are several arbitrators who enjoy the company of a good looking man. Why don't you put the charm on full-throttle and seduce them? Here are some lines you can use to win the day:

"Oh, Flo, you're just the way I like my women -- so round, so firm, so fully packed!"

"Oh, Shell, you don't look a day over 60."

"Oh, Risker, I feel feverish -- how'd you like to take my temperature, mama?"

"Oh, Roger, I'm really flattered -- and it is okay, your secret is safe with me."

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

That's why I advocate making love instead of war.

In plan English, getting laid is more fun than playing on the computer?

Yes, and all kinds of "helping kids in Africa" stuff exists if you want to do good.

Don't invest your goodwill in their deception. Why would you want to play along with the game at all?

Why on earth attempt the ritual humiliation unless to ridicule them and their processes into awareness?

Honestly Ottava, there is just too much ignorance, arrogance, hatred and stupidity in there to be enlightened.

If you have to go in ... go in as a social worker or union activist.

[EricBarbour]

"Oh, Flo, you're just the way I like my women -- so round, so firm, so fully packed!"
"Oh, Shell, you don't look a day over 60."
"Oh, Risker, I feel feverish -- how'd you like to take my temperature, mama?"
"Oh, Roger, I'm really flattered -- and it is okay, your secret is safe with me."

Haw haw, haw haw. Me laffy soooo hard.

[Somey]

Somey, that could work if I was someone like Unitanode, who was allowed to have at least 7 different account names...

But not concurrently.

...merely because he would use those accounts as toss away attack dogs to help position people into power.

Right - why else would they let him have seven different (but non-concurrent) account names? No other explanation makes sense!

I, however, could not do such a thing, nor do I have people who are willing to allow me to "clean start".

Ah, then you've answered your own question, haven't you? The only thing left for you is to make that final conceptual realization, that Wikipedia is the antithesis of a real-world institution in terms of human interaction (unless you count junior high as an "institution"). In something like a college or a research library, you can (in theory) be respected without necessarily being well-liked. On Wikipedia, you not only can't be respected without being well-liked, you're actually respected almost entirely for your ability to be liked within the (limited, insular) Wikipedia context. Your talents as a scholar or as a writer/editor aren't just secondary, they're actually an impediment to your ability to succeed at the Wikipedia game.

Admittedly, if you're already well-liked, then those talents might impress a few people and bring you somewhat increased respect on occasion, but if you're not well-liked, they're seen as little more than snobbery and "rubbing it in."

And I say this knowing that academic institutions are themselves notorious for petty sniping and infighting between people who are supposed to be grown-ups and should know better.

So yes, basically, I'd have to say bag it. True, you'll have to find another way to express your scholarly leanings and all that stuff, but that's easier than pretending to be something (or someone) you're not, or changing your personality just so you can get along with people on some website.

[Ottava]

Somey, that could work if I was someone like Unitanode, who was allowed to have at least 7 different account names...

But not concurrently.

BobTheTomato, Bellwether BC, and MrWhich were used in overlapping manners, with attacks against Gwen Gale on one account while items like supporting Risker's RfA were on another. After having the socking exposed and most likely to be blocked, he "retired", claimed he was "outed", and said he wouldn't be around again. He made the SDJ account instead.

So yes, basically, I'd have to say bag it. True, you'll have to find another way to express your scholarly leanings and all that stuff, but that's easier than pretending to be something (or someone) you're not, or changing your personality just so you can get along with people on some website.

You forgot that I can already express my scholarly learnings -on- Wikipedia from -outside- Wikipedia as I did three times before. Does that then change the above? Doesn't that, with it making me immune from what is the culture of Wikipedia then allow me to be me without worries?


And, as a further matter, if the ban gives me justification not to conform or play the game, what do they do for others who are willing to sock and the rest? Doesn't that kind verify that the banning system doesn't actually work?

[dogbiscuit]

I think that was a useful and informative conversation.

Again, setting aside the rights and wrongs of any position, I think what this suggests to me is that if sticking to your own position is paramount, then you are probably never going to succeed in any forum that requires the norms of social interaction.

The ability to conduct business entirely on your own terms is not a privilege granted to many, even CEOs have to conduct themselves within the norms of business.

The evolving Wikipedian society, such as it is, demands that you subjugate yourself to the cause. While there may be all-powerful beings present at the moment, they can only wield that power if it can be expressed in terms of being for the greater good. Rarely do we see any forgiveness shown even when an individual can be seen to be in the right and has been abused by the masses. (Wordbomb is a classic example where ultimately we can see that his work pointed out problems applicable not only in Wikipedia but in wider society, yet because he was perceived as a threat to Wikipedia, he is treated with disdain and there seems to be a lingering tolerance for Mantanmorland who successfully triggered the Wikipedian immune response).

However, I think it is pointless to go back to Wikipedia because you simply do not have the mindset to be able to play the game.

While I respect a principled person, what is untenable in a co-operative society is a person so principled that he cannot tolerate other people's points of view. Any social gathering must have mechanisms for dealing with disagreement, and it is unrealistic to expect a disparate group, either on Wikipedia or WR or in real life to be subservient to the needs and wishes of one individual and for that individual to expect the world to mould itself around the individual.

In the words of the great philosopher K. Rogers:

You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away, know when to run.
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table,
There'll be time enough for countin', when the gambling's done.

[Peter Damian]

A simple example is when someone clearly does not understand something you have explained is that you apologise for not making yourself clear rather than blaming the other person for being stupid. One way you create resentment, the other way, you have opened up a way forward - and it might actually be true too, because then it challenges you to restate the issue in a clearer way.

If you accept there is an element of gamesmanship to being involved in Wikipedia, then setting up a different persona where you do not have to feel your own reputation is on the line over every minor point (given that you clearly strongly identify the Ottava persona with yourself) might help you come up with a different strategy for succeeding on Wikipedia without feeling you have compromised your integrity.

Ottava, he is giving you some very good advice. There are better places than Wikipedia to use that advice, though.

With every kind wish - Peter.

[Ottava]

If you accept there is an element of gamesmanship to being involved in Wikipedia, then setting up a different persona where you do not have to feel your own reputation is on the line over every minor point (given that you clearly strongly identify the Ottava persona with yourself) might help you come up with a different strategy for succeeding on Wikipedia without feeling you have compromised your integrity.

As I stated before, putting forth another persona would not benefit me in terms of why I am around nor would it be feasible.

However, I think it is pointless to go back to Wikipedia because you simply do not have the mindset to be able to play the game.

Agreed with the second part, which is why I asked the question - if I don't play the game, then what would I get from even bothering? Right now, I can produce the content I want to produce without the hassle or problems. I get to keep my integrity. Those who lose are ArbCom, as I am outside of their control. Another group that loses would be GAN or FAC, as I use to do a lot of the reviews and few people are willing to bother. That would mean process and governance would lose out from not having me, but I wouldn't lose out from not serving them.

While I respect a principled person, what is untenable in a co-operative society is a person so principled that he cannot tolerate other people's points of view

I worked with Haiduc though I can't stand his views. I also worked with Ironholds and Malleus even though we disagree on the basics of grammar and the rest.

I don't think "working with someone" has anything to do with agreeing with their views or politics. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a lot of work between politicians and the rest. Instead, what happens in such a situation is a cost-benefit analysis. What can I gain in the bargain.

There is very little cost-benefit analysis on Wiki, or done by ArbCom. There is very little bargaining or deal making. It tends to be either zero sum or "one winner". I don't consider that very civil, but Wiki civility is not the same as what many people would consider civil.


I'm very capable of making deals and abiding by them. Look at Somey saying that part of the terms for my coming back was avoiding the religious/political fight. I've avoided that quite capably, no?

What could ArbCom even offer me to get my work? Well, the reason why I filed the ArbCom case was the harassment. It wouldn't be that hard to keep people away from me. I could also lose the ability to edit at ANI, AN, etc. That is no problem at all. But ArbCom et al doesn't make deals. They don't compromise. They don't try to do anything at all, to be honest. It is mostly a popularity contest. That isn't representative of the real world.

Perhaps I spent too much time in the world of business and politics where all it is is negotiating between philosophical opposites towards terms without either side having to step down from or give up their views.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

There is very little cost-benefit analysis on Wiki, or done by ArbCom.

There is very little bargaining or deal making. ... But ArbCom et al doesn't make deals. They don't compromise. They don't try to do anything at all, to be honest.

There is no cost-benefit analysis on Wiki ... they do not even want to stop to imagine how much waste there is and what little real world benefit there is as long as they can still bullshit BIG NUMBAZ to the general public to coo at.

They don't have to pay for it ... so why should they bother. They don't. More fool you.

They should bother. A truly ethical 501c NPO WOULD bother a lot. The Piss-Pedia ... not one bit. It is a big game for them and the leaders are pulling in the cash for themselves by keeping the PR up.

Arbcom ... who are they really and what do they think they are? It is some kind of 'Faux Supreme Court' fantasy upgrade to their avatar in which they get to act as hanging judges complete with complicit clerks, ladies to do stenography and an public gallery!?!

I do not know the current lot and have not look for a while. Who are they? Would you give any of them any superiority and decision making power over your life in the real world if you met them?

Stanford Prison Experiment ... more fool them because they are still not getting paid.

As a cult, Jimmy Wales's Pornopedia needs to do what the Hare Krishna's did and hire (another) external expert to set up a paid INDEPENDENT ombudsperson service.

[Ottava]

I found this interesting: Does Ottava get credit at DYK for his work?

I enjoy how cmadler appears out of nowhere. I also enjoy how people treat it as an award, etc. I get credit regardless if a template hits my user page. I wrote the page. Sj made it clear who did.

I do enjoy Rlevse's "I'm not making a statement, but I'm posting here to make it clear who pushed these individuals into speaking" post here. Now, proxying? Nope. I threw it out there. People do what they want. But it is nice for him to try and claim otherwise. A proxy is a meatpuppet, someone you control. Now, there are two people there who could be deemed "proxies", but, as I stated above, they aren't mine.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)