QUOTE(bluevictim @ Tue 1st April 2008, 11:42pm)
And he's also outing Alison for no reason.
Ooh, maybe he's a misogynist too? He seems to be into rap music, which has traditionally been notorious for that sort of thing.
Mind you, he does make some fairly good points:
QUOTE
Since the most abusive admins are closest to the top of the Wikipedia hierarchy and since they nominate and approve the other admins as well as hide amongst them claiming "legitimate use of sockpuppets", I will out them all at my convenience until the anonymity function of Wikipedia Administration becomes useless, and the editors have to resort to honesty and straightforwardness. I further hold that my reaction is the natural and justifiable reaction that any reasonable person with surplus time, resources, skill, and pride would make after being kicked off an allegedly free 501 c) Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game by a team of medallion-wearing hentai and anal fisting experts for the crime of having a known identity and a sense of self-esteem and personal authority without having been duly appointed to Admin status or given any "Barnstars" for being obseqious and minuscule.
Nota Bene: Wikipedia had its chance. Wikipedia formally decided in March 2007 that Real Life Editorial and Administrative accountability was *not* going to be permitted. Regarding persons other than themselves, they believe they have a right to nose about in everyone else's business, accusing them of "internet crimes" such as Conflict of Interest, Spam, and Stalking when their identities are revealed. This includes half of the persons allegedly "criticizing" and "reforming" Wikipedia. The truth is that a central cabal of Wikipedia admins, including Risker, AudeVivere, David Gerard, Josh Gordon, Michael Noda, and Jayjg, have such enormously fat heads that they regularly discuss expanding the prosecutorial and probationary police powers of Wikipedia into real communities to have Wikipedians who disagree with Admins ---arrested! That desired capacity alone merits a full-scale attack on Wikipedian Anonymity. That Wikipedia is considered an information authority and uses coding hooks and crooks to place first in Google is another reason. Or perhaps you prefer to be ruled unworthy of existence by the self-proclaimed search engine police.
It's a little blustery, of course, but it's hard to argue with the facts. (Even if he
did leave out the "u" in "obsequious"... (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/getlost.gif) )
Presumably the bit about "formally decided in March 2007 that Real Life Editorial and Administrative accountability was *not* going to be permitted" is a reference to the post-Essjay "credentials verification" debate. Remember how they got a lot of press for their "credentials verification initiative" as if it were really going to happen, and when it didn't and in fact
the opposite happened, the press basically ignored the fact that they'd essentially lied their asses off over the whole thing? They really got away with one there.
However, he seems to be saying that someone -
User:Irishguy? - deleted his user
account, when in fact it was
his user page that was deleted, along with the talk page, by
User:MZMcBride, who seems to make a habit of that sort of thing. However, the account had fewer than 50 edits, so maybe they've got some sort of policy about that (they always do)...
Apparently User:Contextflexed had
accused Irishguy of "linkstalking" him, which isn't a term I'm familiiar with...? It looks like Irishguy was removing a link to
this review from the article on
Peter_Gelderloos, author of
How Nonviolence Protects the State. To be honest, I don't see how the link Irishguy removed is significantly less "notable" than the ones that were left in, though there's no question that it's a terribly negative review, accusing Gelderloos of having written the "worst swindle since Rock n Roll."
Of course, some of us here may prefer to conclude that the real reason for all this is his
criticism of Chip Berlet.