I Declare World Wiki War on Admin Anonymity, Enjoy my first Wikipedia User Identity List Options Rating

[FLIPSIDE]

I have been to many Wikipedia review sites now, and am less than enthused with the endless ball-lessness and lukewarm debate over the ethics over ending Wikipedia Administrative Anonymity. Out of respect for the rules of Wikipedia Review, I am not posting the names here, but I will give you the link to my first dedicated Information Bomb against Wikipedia. It is now my official mission to ruin Anonymity on Wikipedia. If anyone has anything useful to contribute, consider yourselves invited to contact me. I am currently only impressed by the work of Daniel Brandt and Judd Bagley, and observe that the various forums "critical" of Wikipedia are excessively staffed by Wikipedia Admins, as evidenced by their blistering wails (Wales?) whenever solid information comes out.

To whatever end, I now offer you the new WIKIPEDIA USER DATABASE at Haters Magazine

http://www.contextflexed.com/storywikipediaexposed.html

[Peter Damian]

http://www.contextflexed.com/storywikipediaexposed.html[/url]

Interesting but FT2 is certainly not Ian Limbach. Limbach is based in Europe, FT2 is not. FT2 is full-time NLP trainer and not journalist.

[dogbiscuit]

http://www.contextflexed.com/storywikipediaexposed.html[/url]

Interesting but FT2 is certainly not Ian Limbach. Limbach is based in Europe, FT2 is not. FT2 is full-time NLP trainer and not journalist.

I was a little surprised to see TheKosher outed there too. Shocking revelation indeed.

[FLIPSIDE]

http://www.contextflexed.com/storywikipediaexposed.html[/url]

Interesting but FT2 is certainly not Ian Limbach. Limbach is based in Europe, FT2 is not. FT2 is full-time NLP trainer and not journalist.

Thanks! I will modify the known to be less accurate portion list to be more accurate based on these types of notices.

[BobbyBombastic]

Comment about this line:

^demon / Danny = Danny Wool (FL) dannyisme@gmail.com http://veropedia.com St.Petersburg, Florida, USA

I'm not sure what you are trying to say there, but ^demon is not Danny Wool. ^demon does not hide his real name, to my knowledge.

My initial thought is that this list is overkill. How long did this take from the start until now?

[Alex]

I have been to many Wikipedia review sites now, and am less than enthused with the endless ball-lessness and lukewarm debate over the ethics over ending Wikipedia Administrative Anonymity. Out of respect for the rules of Wikipedia Review, I am not posting the names here, but I will give you the link to my first dedicated Information Bomb against Wikipedia. It is now my official mission to ruin Anonymity on Wikipedia. If anyone has anything useful to contribute, consider yourselves invited to contact me. I am currently only impressed by the work of Daniel Brandt and Judd Bagley, and observe that the various forums "critical" of Wikipedia are excessively staffed by Wikipedia Admins, as evidenced by their blistering wails (Wales?) whenever solid information comes out.

To whatever end, I now offer you the new WIKIPEDIA USER DATABASE at Haters Magazine

http://www.contextflexed.com/storywikipediaexposed.html

I'm not actually a vandal proof admin by the way (this is Majorly), you may like to fix that.

[FLIPSIDE]

I have been to many Wikipedia review sites now, and am less than enthused with the endless ball-lessness and lukewarm debate over the ethics over ending Wikipedia Administrative Anonymity. Out of respect for the rules of Wikipedia Review, I am not posting the names here, but I will give you the link to my first dedicated Information Bomb against Wikipedia. It is now my official mission to ruin Anonymity on Wikipedia. If anyone has anything useful to contribute, consider yourselves invited to contact me. I am currently only impressed by the work of Daniel Brandt and Judd Bagley, and observe that the various forums "critical" of Wikipedia are excessively staffed by Wikipedia Admins, as evidenced by their blistering wails (Wales?) whenever solid information comes out.

To whatever end, I now offer you the new WIKIPEDIA USER DATABASE at Haters Magazine

http://www.contextflexed.com/storywikipediaexposed.html

I'm not actually a vandal proof admin by the way (this is Majorly), you may like to fix that.

Yes. I will fix all small tweaks like that after a brief feedback collection period, and recheck any glaring misattributions.

[LessHorrid vanU]

Sometimes - and this actually a serious point, with regard to some peoples possible desire to be (sort of) recognised - I wish I were a little more furtive about my identity, just so I could be put up on these lists as a "person of mystery". However, I can't be arsed.

Hey, Flipside, if Wikipedia "relative estrangement from the facts" bothers you - don't ever subscribe to one of those dating sites. You might explode.

[FLIPSIDE]

Sometimes - and this actually a serious point, with regard to some peoples possible desire to be (sort of) recognised - I wish I were a little more furtive about my identity, just so I could be put up on these lists as a "person of mystery". However, I can't be arsed.

Hey, Flipside, if Wikipedia "relative estrangement from the facts" bothers you - don't ever subscribe to one of those dating sites. You might explode.

LOL (Can I say that?)

[wikiwhistle]

Sometimes - and this actually a serious point, with regard to some peoples possible desire to be (sort of) recognised - I wish I were a little more furtive about my identity, just so I could be put up on these lists as a "person of mystery". However, I can't be arsed.

Lol! I don't think I'd really like to be outed. It happened to me on another site, just because a family friend fell out with me and started broadcasting my name everywhere. She'd done so a bit anyway just because she was quite a newbie to the internets and so not as cautious.

Hey, Flipside, if Wikipedia "relative estrangement from the facts" bothers you - don't ever subscribe to one of those dating sites. You might explode.

Lol! How about 'friends reunited' or whatever similar sites? I've known quite a few people embroider their lives so they sound more impressive than they really are, on there.

[Alison]

I have been to many Wikipedia review sites now, and am less than enthused with the endless ball-lessness and lukewarm debate over the ethics over ending Wikipedia Administrative Anonymity. Out of respect for the rules of Wikipedia Review, I am not posting the names here, but I will give you the link to my first dedicated Information Bomb against Wikipedia. It is now my official mission to ruin Anonymity on Wikipedia. If anyone has anything useful to contribute, consider yourselves invited to contact me. I am currently only impressed by the work of Daniel Brandt and Judd Bagley, and observe that the various forums "critical" of Wikipedia are excessively staffed by Wikipedia Admins, as evidenced by their blistering wails (Wales?) whenever solid information comes out.

To whatever end, I now offer you the new WIKIPEDIA USER DATABASE at Haters Magazine

http://www.contextflexed.com/storywikipediaexposed.html

Tsk. You didn't spell my name right. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) And the bit, "helped kill Amorrow's account then Fake Retired" is completely bogus given, 1) Amorrow was banned before I was even sysop and 2) I never "fake retired" as I'd remained editing (and quite enjoying it) when I handed up my sysop and c/u bits. I'd intended to stay gone but got Hiveminded anyways (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Oh and the me 'n' Foz cabal? lol! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

I never "fake retired" as I'd remained editing (and quite enjoying it) when I handed up my sysop and c/u bits. I'd intended to stay gone but got Hiveminded anyways

You fake retired as a response to being put on Hivemind - rather than coming back after being "Hiveminded anyways", as the above suggests.

[bluevictim]

I never "fake retired" as I'd remained editing (and quite enjoying it) when I handed up my sysop and c/u bits. I'd intended to stay gone but got Hiveminded anyways

You fake retired as a response to being put on Hivemind - rather than coming back after being "Hiveminded anyways", as the above suggests.

She didn't retire, she resigned her sysop and checkuser powers, and still remained an editor. Guy Chapman fake retired I think twice, then he came back both times to be an asshole and go off in insane rants about trolls and such.

This post has been edited by bluevictim:

[Alison]

I never "fake retired" as I'd remained editing (and quite enjoying it) when I handed up my sysop and c/u bits. I'd intended to stay gone but got Hiveminded anyways

You fake retired as a response to being put on Hivemind - rather than coming back after being "Hiveminded anyways", as the above suggests.

Check the timeline. Brandt made the threat re. Fozzie. I went to meta and handed up the bits. I was later requested to complete 1 c/u request, as I'd most experience on the matter. Once the bit was reset, Mr. Brandt read the act as duplicity whereupon he did the Hivemind thing anyway. At that point, cats were out of bags and bets were off, etc, etc. Now that info is being used far and wide by a number of people, one of whom (one Andrew William Morrow) has even gone to the trouble of personally thanking Mr. Brandt for his actions.

And on it goes ... I'm still here, both on WR and WP. Go figure (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

This post has been edited by Alison:

[wikiwhistle]

You implied you were leaving wikipedia (I think you said 'come on guys, let me go!' or something) in response to brandt's threat to put you up there. Not that I blame you necessarily (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Then you said on here you were only back/stiill there for short-term, specific tasks.



I hope you don't leave anyway. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)


And you and Foz- you can't deny you seem to have a close friendship here. It's not like saying the 'alison and brandt cabal' or something (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Alison]

You implied you were leaving wikipedia (I think you said 'come on guys, let me go!' or something) in response to brandt's threat to put you up there. Not that I blame you necessarily (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Well, I went back to being an avid editor again in the while I was de-opped. Started going over pharma/med articles and the Irish Maritime project stuff. Twas fun (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Someone said at the time, Oh wait, I thought you were leaving for good, LOL. Never mind.

Then you said on here you were only back/stiill there for short-term, specific tasks.

I hope you don't leave anyway. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Thanks! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) The "back for the specific task" concerned one final c/u job (relating to Amorrow. Surprise!) and this caused the confusion. It was only ever meant to be back on for minutes but ended up being on overnight because of time differences and stuff (right, Lar?).

And you and Foz- you can't deny you seem to have a close friendship here. It's not like saying the 'alison and brandt cabal' or something (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Yeah, we're good pals (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) That's true ....

[FLIPSIDE]

Tsk. You didn't spell my name right.

Sorry about spelling your name wrong. Must be my kindergarten girlfriend giving me flashbacks. I'll fix that.

(video montage)

All fixed.

I can haz job at Apple Computers?

This post has been edited by FLIPSIDE:

[Lar]

Thanks! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) The "back for the specific task" concerned one final c/u job (relating to Amorrow. Surprise!) and this caused the confusion. It was only ever meant to be back on for minutes but ended up being on overnight because of time differences and stuff (right, Lar?).

Right. Or you were ignoring me as per usual, I forget. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[michael]

That was horrible.

If you're going to out users, make it classy, like Brandt. Make a table, at least.

[Somey]

If you're going to out users, make it classy, like Brandt. Make a table, at least.

And photos! We've got to have photos! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

I'm sorry if some of us are "ball-less," but aside from the fact that we actually do have a few members who are women, some of us have just concluded that this sort of action is no good unless you have clear moral justification for it. Personally, I think you have to be a BLP victim to reach that level of justification... And as has been pointed out above, the potential risk of a false positive is always there too.

[FLIPSIDE]

That was horrible.

If you're going to out users, make it classy, like Brandt. Make a table, at least.

I appreciate fine columns and rows like the next man, but I developed this in .txt and then c**tpasted it to Html, preferring to focus on the info. I thought the links and anchors were nice. I didn't want to get too into adding all those Helga, bug eyed tranny pics of the powerbrokers. I do have to keep my lunch down.

[bluevictim]

I believe things like this and hivemind should be a database of the names, universities, graduation dates, field(s), and profession of all editors who have ever claimed a degree and. If the editor's claimed credentials are false, with evidence that the degrees are fake, it should be listed as so. The real name of the editor should still remain, though, if the degree is fake, to provide accountability. In the case of of an editor who claims experience, but not necessarily a degree, and has edited in their supposed field, the information should be: real given name and surname, field of expertise, a link to the editor's report, and profession. At least one e-mail address, if known, should be provided for contact. In the event the e-mail address is used for harassment, the address should be taken down. Processes should be the same if the expertise is fake.

My definition of an expert is someone who has experience (i.e., not book knowledge, and not intuition) in a field, and has done a report on their experience. The two words seem to have the same root, exper-. For example, I would define an expert in Indian anthropology as someone who has actually went to India, extensively study and document a culture there (their customs, life, and cultural highlights), optionally live with the people, and then organize their journal/documentation and write a report about it, then publish it.

[Milton Roe]

I believe things like this and hivemind should be a database of the names, universities, graduation dates, field(s), and profession of all editors who have ever claimed a degree and. If the editor's claimed credentials are false, with evidence that the degrees are fake, it should be listed as so. The real name of the editor should still remain, though, if the degree is fake, to provide accountability. In the case of of an editor who claims experience, but not necessarily a degree, and has edited in their supposed field, the information should be: real given name and surname, field of expertise, a link to the editor's report, and profession. At least one e-mail address, if known, should be provided for contact. In the event the e-mail address is used for harassment, the address should be taken down. Processes should be the same if the expertise is fake.

Might be a good idea for Wikipedia also. But then the question is what to do with the info. I've made suggestions (an additional layer of article promotion, or grading, with only acknowledged experts permitted to participate)

My definition of an expert is someone who has experience (i.e., not book knowledge, and not intuition) in a field, and has done a report on their experience. The two words seem to have the same root, exper-. For example, I would define an expert in Indian anthropology as someone who has actually went to India, extensively study and document a culture there (their customs, life, and cultural highlights), optionally live with the people, and then organize their journal/documentation and write a report about it, then publish it.

I forsee problems with the pedophilia and zoophilia articles (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) , but generally something like that should work. Qualify by adding that, for topics where academic credentials are used, or licenses are granted (for example an airplane pilot's license with multiengine cert), then those should be count and/or be required. That gets us though the sciences, technologies, and a surprising number of other subjects tought in college. However, I don't quite know what we're going to do for topics like ghosts or homeopathy or ESP, since there are endless debates about what qualifies as "experience."

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Proabivouac]

To whatever end, I now offer you the new WIKIPEDIA USER DATABASE at Haters Magazine

Why on earth are you "outing" ALM scientist? He's not an administrator, isn't part of any cabal, and has done you no wrong.

[bluevictim]

To whatever end, I now offer you the new WIKIPEDIA USER DATABASE at Haters Magazine

Why on earth are you "outing" ALM scientist? He's not an administrator, isn't part of any cabal, and has done you no wrong.

And he's also outing Alison for no reason.

[Somey]

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:

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.

[Proabivouac]

It's a little blustery, of course, but it's hard to argue with the facts.

It's a complete non sequitur to criticize a ruling cabal of administrators, and then print the name of someone like ALM scientist, who isn't even a well-connected user, much less an administrator or a checkuser, and has zero interest in Wikipedia politics.

The government sucks, so I'll attack a bunch of random people.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Viridae]

Yay I see my name.

[Somey]

It's a complete non sequitur to criticize a ruling cabal of administrators, and then print the name of someone like ALM scientist, who isn't even a well-connected user, much less an administrator or a checkuser, and has zero interest in Wikipedia politics.

The government sucks, so I'll attack a bunch of random people.

That seems to be exactly what he's doing, though the "government" in this case is WP, of course... If anything, Mr. FLIPSIDE is actually defending the government by writing a negative review of a book by an anarchist who apparently advocates violence against the state, or at least is an apologist for it. I should point out that while this review essentially attacks a living person, his only edits to the BLP article on Gelderloos were to re-add the one link - he didn't attempt to insert anything defamatory about him directly into the article. Also, bear in mind that the link had been in the article for five whole months, prior to being removed by User:Irishguy as "non-notable." Was there was any talk-page discussion of this? I couldn't find any, and quite frankly, I doubt it.

Anyway.... we've been over all these arguments many times, but the one I think Mr. FLIPSIDE may be missing is the fact that many of these people actually want to be identified. Everybody loves attention, and he's only playing into their hands at the expense of people like, as you say, the ostensibly harmless (and mostly inactive) User:ALM_scientist. Personally, I believe the number of such people has been significantly underestimated by us, if not by most people who profess moral outrage (justifiably or not) against WP's anonymous-editor culture.

And lastly, I'll be honest here: I don't think I agree with much of what Mr. FLIPSIDE believes or writes, and of course I've never been all that fond of rap music... but we can't deny that he's looked at the same problems and come to many of the same conclusions, even if he states those conclusions more stridently than most. Ultimately what he's doing may be ineffective or even counter-productive, but he's clearly no silly/childish "vandal" or "troll" - he's every bit as much an intellectual as I am, or anybody else here, or on WP for that matter. He just happens to not like much of anything... I can respect that, I guess.

[Miltopia]

If this is an attempt to inject false positives into the databases of people who really do keep track of this stuff, it's not very good.

I call bullshit.

[Alison]

To whatever end, I now offer you the new WIKIPEDIA USER DATABASE at Haters Magazine

Why on earth are you "outing" ALM scientist? He's not an administrator, isn't part of any cabal, and has done you no wrong.

And Vox Humana, too. Why??? He's only a young teenager, isn't an admin & just keeps his head down and edits music and church-related articles. What exactly did he ever do? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Milton Roe]

To whatever end, I now offer you the new WIKIPEDIA USER DATABASE at Haters Magazine
http://www.contextflexed.com/storywikipediaexposed.html

The article on Chip Berlet alone is worth the link. I believe I also recognize the type.
http://www.contextflexed.com/storychipberlet.html

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Giggy]

Oh wow, he couldn't even get the right username attached to my email.

Kudos.

[Lar]

I believe things like this and hivemind should be a database of the names, universities, graduation dates, field(s), and profession of all editors who have ever claimed a degree and. If the editor's claimed credentials are false, with evidence that the degrees are fake, it should be listed as so. The real name of the editor should still remain, though, if the degree is fake, to provide accountability. In the case of of an editor who claims experience, but not necessarily a degree, and has edited in their supposed field, the information should be: real given name and surname, field of expertise, a link to the editor's report, and profession. At least one e-mail address, if known, should be provided for contact. In the event the e-mail address is used for harassment, the address should be taken down. Processes should be the same if the expertise is fake.

My definition of an expert is someone who has experience (i.e., not book knowledge, and not intuition) in a field, and has done a report on their experience. The two words seem to have the same root, exper-. For example, I would define an expert in Indian anthropology as someone who has actually went to India, extensively study and document a culture there (their customs, life, and cultural highlights), optionally live with the people, and then organize their journal/documentation and write a report about it, then publish it.

Does it need to be in a peer reviewed (academic) journal? Or would something in a widely circulated popular magazine (say National Geo) do? Or a narrowly circulated one? Or self published? Somewhere in there (not exactly sure where) it goes from solid to slippery...

I think the idea of credentials is good, I have said more than once I wish that Wikipedia had been started with a real names only requirement, and my real name is out there for all to see, but I think the credentials about experience might need a bit more work yet.

Don't confuse that sentiment with approval of outing those who joined WP under the current system, and especially not with approval of this particular effort. My fix would be to start the project over with new rules about identity, rather than to out people. (although I recognise that is rather more work and less fun than making up a page of names)

[FLIPSIDE]

Why on earth are you "outing" ALM scientist? He's not an administrator, isn't part of any cabal, and has done you no wrong.

I think that not everyone is on the same wavelength about this. ALM scientist has done me no wrong. Neither have I done him wrong.

Oh wow, he couldn't even get the right username attached to my email.

True fact.

If this is an attempt to inject false positives...

It's not. This is a good faith action, clearly signed by my name, and updated and repaired.

Yay I see my name.

You should be proud. You do a lot of srs bizniss on teh internets. Take credit.

(Even if he did leave out the "u" in "obsequious"...

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I think Mr. FLIPSIDE may be missing is the fact that many of these people actually want to be identified. Everybody loves attention, and he's only playing into their hands at the expense of people...

You're right. I'm not missing it. I'd like to be an advantage as well as seek an advantage. Inactives have to expect that the world will change around them and decide to make better use of the changes.

[guy]

Does it need to be in a peer reviewed (academic) journal? Or would something in a widely circulated popular magazine (say National Geo) do? Or a narrowly circulated one? Or self published? Somewhere in there (not exactly sure where) it goes from solid to slippery...

It needs to be something that is a reliable source.

By the way - correction - Sarah is a completely different admin from SV.

[EricBarbour]

(Even if he did leave out the "u" in "obsequious"...
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Flipside's list is the funniest thing I've seen on WR so far.
Props, dude. Be prepared for the flames of HELL. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

(Still wanna know more about Irishguy.)

[Lar]

Does it need to be in a peer reviewed (academic) journal? Or would something in a widely circulated popular magazine (say National Geo) do? Or a narrowly circulated one? Or self published? Somewhere in there (not exactly sure where) it goes from solid to slippery...

It needs to be something that is a reliable source.

That works for me. There are those that have pointed out that the definition of RS is itself imperfect.

[One]

Good admixture of truth and garbage. No wonder you're peeved about being exiled from Wikipedia.

[bluevictim]

I don't really think one should have to have a degree, experience, or both. If one claims a degree or expertise, many people will trust them more if they edit articles in their field than someone who doesn't claim those things or someone who claims not to have them. I myself don't trust experts more (except for certain things), but since many others do, a user who claims a degree or expertise should state things that would prove it, such as a reference to their published, peer-reviewed report and/or a link to it on the web. The reference should be in the format Firstname Lastname, Publication (Year). lso, college records would be useful for their user page, if they saythey are an expert or a graduate and edit articles in their field. I don't think we should care that the Wikipedian in question is a Wobbly and in my opinion, it is not useful information. I think FLIPSIDE knows what I'm talking about.

Edit: One, who are you talking to/about?
Edit2: Lar, I don't care whether it's self-published or not, it needs to be peer reviewed. Not necessarily by experts, because other people's points of view should be included in the Review too.

This post has been edited by bluevictim:

[Proabivouac]

Why on earth are you "outing" ALM scientist? He's not an administrator, isn't part of any cabal, and has done you no wrong.

I think that not everyone is on the same wavelength about this. ALM scientist has done me no wrong. Neither have I done him wrong.

Come on, dude. You've made it very clear that you mean to get back at Wikipedia, and this list is meant to be part of that. I accept that this tactic is justified in some instances and necessary in others, but to pretend that you're not meaning any harm here is completely insincere.

Really, you don't think you're doing people harm by posting their contact information?

ALM never told me why he changed his username, and I never asked - who needs to ask? Most rational people chose to keep their real names out of Wikipedia flame wars, and who can blame them? So now you come around and sing, "nya nya nya nya nya nya, I know your real name!" and you don't think there is something fundamentally unprovoked and uncalled for here?

Go ahead and get back at Wikipedia, but for God's sake, choose your targets. Brandt is already firing wildly in all directions, including people who are on the right side of bio issue and have advocated deleting his, but at least they're administrators. You've really established a new low here by including people who aren't even arguably responsible for what happens on the site besides their own contributions.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[guy]

There are those that have pointed out that the definition of RS is itself imperfect.

I think that's Lar's most beautiful understatement to date.

[tarantino]

http://www.contextflexed.com/storywikipediaexposed.html

Interesting but FT2 is certainly not Ian Limbach. Limbach is based in Europe, FT2 is not. FT2 is full-time NLP trainer and not journalist.

Are you sure? As you can see from Special:Contributions/81.86.166.33, in 2004-2005, it looks like he was editing from the U.K. In addition to the IP editing FT2's user page, it also edited German Shepherd Dog, Zoophilia and Srinivasa Ramanujan, all in proximity to FT2.

This post has been edited by tarantino:

[FLIPSIDE]

I don't think we should care that the Wikipedian in question is a Wobbly and in my opinion, it is not useful information. I think FLIPSIDE knows what I'm talking about.

Yes I do. And it *should* not matter -- if one can be reasonably expected to rise above superficial political beliefs and act in good faith.

Come on, dude. You've made it very clear that you mean to get back at Wikipedia, and this list is meant to be part of that. I accept that this tactic is justified in some instances and necessary in others, but to pretend that you're not meaning any harm here is completely insincere.

Really, you don't think you're doing people harm by posting their contact information?

I mean to bring the heat to Wikipedia as a whole, specifically the top of Wikipedia, give it a fever, what have you, until it burns out the IrishGuy infection, but not by harming individual users. I don't see this as using a scattergun against innocent bystanders. I see this as taking a few steps to change the entire Wikipedia playing board through medium sized, holistic, and not overreaching tactics.

People should keep their real names out of Wikipedia flame wars. There should be no Wikipedia flame wars. I think it's called for to place a universal price tag on anonymous flaming. I agree with choosing targets. I have chosen the target of Wikipedia as transnational state or as Civ. The target was preselected from the onset of the project at MIT, and the first person kicked off Wikipedia back when it was a little blob at MIT became the first Troll/Sockpuppet of WP. I advocate a much less craven and much more firm and total alteration of the community over there as the first participant to officially be willing to Othello flip every single Wikipedian if necessary. It's not out of big headedness, it's out of determination to participate with will.

This post has been edited by FLIPSIDE:

[Amarkov]

Come on, dude. You've made it very clear that you mean to get back at Wikipedia, and this list is meant to be part of that. I accept that this tactic is justified in some instances and necessary in others, but to pretend that you're not meaning any harm here is completely insincere.

Really, you don't think you're doing people harm by posting their contact information?

I mean to bring the heat to Wikipedia as a whole, specifically the top of Wikipedia, give it a fever, what have you, until it burns out the IrishGuy infection, but not by harming individual users. I don't see this as using a scattergun against innocent bystanders. I see this as taking a few steps to change the entire Wikipedia playing board through medium sized, holistic, and not overreaching tactics.

It doesn't really matter what you intended by doing this. The fact is, you are invading people's privacy, when many of them have done nothing but be associated with Wikipedia.

[FLIPSIDE]

It doesn't really matter what you intended by doing this. The fact is, you are invading people's privacy, when many of them have done nothing but be associated with Wikipedia.

That is a nonsequitor. People who wish to remain private do not pose as editors of an encyclopedia. Every encyclopedia I have ever purchased has listed the names and credentials of the contributors. If we may move off the ethics issue back to the existential issue: Either Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, or it is a Role Playing Game.

This post has been edited by FLIPSIDE:

[Rootology]

It doesn't really matter what you intended by doing this. The fact is, you are invading people's privacy, when many of them have done nothing but be associated with Wikipedia.

This is a question I asked once. Who empowered Wikipedia to invade the privacy of BLPs? Why do BLPs have to endure an article but any external scrutiny of the editors is always considered a bad and dangerous thing that hurts people in real life?

"Why are Wikipedia editors special creatures that are entitled to protections for their privacy that does not exist for the article subjects in Wikipedia?"

That question in italics is the thing no one can ever answer.

[Alison]

It doesn't really matter what you intended by doing this. The fact is, you are invading people's privacy, when many of them have done nothing but be associated with Wikipedia.

That is a nonsequitor. People who wish to remain private do not pose as editors of an encyclopedia. Every encyclopedia I have ever purchased has listed the names and credentials of the contributors. If we may move off the ethics issue back to the existential issue: Either Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, or it is a Role Playing Game.

Actually no, let's stay with the ethics issue for a minute. Why is Vox Humana's name up there? Why is Risker's, for that matter? For that matter, why am *I* up there? All you did was copy Daniel Brandt's info, which he's already taken down. Right now it's starting to look like you just want to get at WMF by hurting as many contributors as possible, regardless of whether they're admins, BLP violators, whatever. Fair game in your "battle" against WP.

I look through the list and find that it's riddled with inaccuracies, downright disinformation ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) ) and editors who have retired long ago. Right now, what you've done, IMO, is created a big long tl;dr list of WP editors simply because you wanna. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[FLIPSIDE]

"Why are Wikipedia editors special creatures that are entitled to protections for their privacy that does not exist for the article subjects in Wikipedia?"

That question in italics is the thing no one can ever answer.

I agree with that question. And it is a question that Wittgenstein would say arises from a particular misunderstanding of language. After all, editors can be in fact entirely composed of computer programs. I use my Hypertext Editor to edit webpages. Why should (the deletionist) Wikipedia editors be treated differently than the dispassionate programmatic line altering functions they believe themselves to be? Under a 501 nonprofit, come one come all, user editable scenario, why shouldn't editors be treated as software offered under GNU and be decompiled, reverse engineered, cloned, and or improved?

Actually no, let's stay with the ethics issue for a minute. Why is Vox Humana's name up there? Why is Risker's, for that matter? For that matter, why am *I* up there? All you did was copy Daniel Brandt's info, which he's already taken down. Right now it's starting to look like you just want to get at WMF by hurting as many contributors as possible, regardless of whether they're admins, BLP violators, whatever. Fair game in your "battle" against WP.

I look through the list and find that it's riddled with inaccuracies, downright disinformation ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) ) and editors who have retired long ago. Right now, what you've done, IMO, is created a big long tl;dr list of WP editors simply because you wanna. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

You are free to throw tantrums and make demands. My experience is that that only works if one is an Admin. It certainly doesn't work for a regular user. You are also invited to offer corrections to the onymous information pile. Being a West Coaster at the "pretty color" computer manufacturer, I understand your desire to remain on the ethical question. I am a PC/IBM person, and as you know, we are cold calculating utilitarians.

This post has been edited by FLIPSIDE:

[Alison]

Actually no, let's stay with the ethics issue for a minute. Why is Vox Humana's name up there? Why is Risker's, for that matter? For that matter, why am *I* up there? All you did was copy Daniel Brandt's info, which he's already taken down. Right now it's starting to look like you just want to get at WMF by hurting as many contributors as possible, regardless of whether they're admins, BLP violators, whatever. Fair game in your "battle" against WP.

I look through the list and find that it's riddled with inaccuracies, downright disinformation ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) ) and editors who have retired long ago. Right now, what you've done, IMO, is created a big long tl;dr list of WP editors simply because you wanna. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

You are free to throw tantrums and make demands. My experience is that that only works if one is an Admin. It certainly doesn't work for a regular user. You are also invited to offer corrections to the onymous information pile. Being a West Coaster at the "pretty color" computer manufacturer, I understand your desire to remain on the ethical question. I am a PC/IBM person, and as you know, we are cold calculating utilitarians.

All I'm doing is asking questions, just you're not answering is all. Where have I been making demands, hm? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Nice dig about my employer, too (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) It sounds like you're saying "neener neener. I know something abouuuuut you!!". Is that where all this is at? A power trip?

This post has been edited by Alison:

[FLIPSIDE]

All I'm doing is asking questions, just you're not answering is all. Where have I been making demands, hm? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Nice dig about my employer, too (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I was going to say "Please Stop." But I couldn't keep a straight face.

[Rootology]

"Why are Wikipedia editors special creatures that are entitled to protections for their privacy that does not exist for the article subjects in Wikipedia?"

That question in italics is the thing no one can ever answer.

I agree with that question. And it is a question that Wittgenstein would say arises from a particular misunderstanding of language. After all, editors can be in fact entirely composed of computer programs. I use my Hypertext Editor to edit webpages. Why should (the deletionist) Wikipedia editors be treated differently than the dispassionate programmatic line altering functions they believe themselves to be? Under a 501 nonprofit, come one come all, user editable scenario, why shouldn't editors be treated as software offered under GNU and be decompiled, reverse engineered, cloned, and or improved?

This is a simplification into the pointlessly fancy speak and gibberish that made me want to contribute less and less here. It's got nothing to do with retaliation.

It's a simple question: why and how did Wikipedia editors get this special status that attempts to out them are "IRL" hurtful and dangerous, but the same principle in reverse does not apply to BLP subjects?

It's simple. What law or social contract awarded those with "in good standing" Wikipedia accounts a unique social status and/or priviledge?

[FLIPSIDE]

This is a simplification into the pointlessly fancy speak and gibberish [...]

It's simple. What law or social contract awarded those with "in good standing" Wikipedia accounts a unique social status and/or priviledge?

Not trying to be cute. It is my understanding that this question can only be either:

Rhetorical
Philosophical
or Mechanical.

[bluevictim]

The website that Flipside gives for Andrew Morrow has a weird, extensively long page about Alison under her real name. There are only two reasons he would even have her last name, he could have done the research himself, or used Daniel Brandt's or FLIPSIDE's information on her to get her real name.

This post has been edited by bluevictim:

[Lar]

It doesn't really matter what you intended by doing this. The fact is, you are invading people's privacy, when many of them have done nothing but be associated with Wikipedia.

That is a nonsequitor. People who wish to remain private do not pose as editors of an encyclopedia. Every encyclopedia I have ever purchased has listed the names and credentials of the contributors. If we may move off the ethics issue back to the existential issue: Either Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, or it is a Role Playing Game.

So why am I on that list, then? I have never made any secret whatever of my identity, it's right there on my user page, so putting me on an outing list sort of misses the point doesn't it? I think you're just a guy with a grudge rather than a noble crusader...

[michael]

And if you had any decency you'd obscure the email addresses instead of letting them pick up spam.

[Amarkov]

It doesn't really matter what you intended by doing this. The fact is, you are invading people's privacy, when many of them have done nothing but be associated with Wikipedia.

This is a question I asked once. Who empowered Wikipedia to invade the privacy of BLPs? Why do BLPs have to endure an article but any external scrutiny of the editors is always considered a bad and dangerous thing that hurts people in real life?

"Why are Wikipedia editors special creatures that are entitled to protections for their privacy that does not exist for the article subjects in Wikipedia?"

That question in italics is the thing no one can ever answer.

Article subjects should get the same protections, if they are nonpublic figures. But repeating every bad thing that Wikipedia does isn't going to help.

[Proabivouac]

It's a simple question: why and how did Wikipedia editors get this special status that attempts to out them are "IRL" hurtful and dangerous, but the same principle in reverse does not apply to BLP subjects?

It's simple. What law or social contract awarded those with "in good standing" Wikipedia accounts a unique social status and/or priviledge?

It's a simple question with an easy answer: Wikipedia should not invade the privacy of BLP subjects. Wikipedia contributors do not have a unique right, or any right, to fire at real people's real names and real lives from behind the safety of pseudonymity.

Those contributors who do that deserve the same in return.

Those that don't, don't.

Is that too nuanced for you?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Milton Roe]

If we may move off the ethics issue back to the existential issue: Either Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, or it is a Role Playing Game.

It might be something else. One of the things it is, is an attempt to be an automatic writing machine for the benefit of Jimbo Wales, which extracts talent from the maximal number of brains, while deliberately encouraging them to be as masked and anonymous as possible, in order that the credit for their work shall not adhere to any of them, but will filter up to give glory to Jimbo.

You want to know one purpose of NPOV and NOR? To try to disguise the fact that any kind of writing is a creative and original act, which deserves credit intrinsically. At Wikipedia, they pretend that what's being done there is different, that it is completely unoriginal and sourced elsewhere, so that nobody can attempt to claim it. Originality is atomized, delocalized, denied, and deprecated. What's left is GFDL'd. Ordinary editors, which is to say content writers, are given no repect, and all power and authority is transferred to people who manage writers, as a farmer would manage cows who give milk.

You want to know why this setup harms people though biographizing them? That's mostly a side effect. If it's just an automatic writing machine for Jimbo, he can have all the credit without any responsibility. This much is like corporations and institutions everywhere (NASA managers no doubt see their engineers that way-- see decades of Dilbert Cartoons). Is a given Wiki article crappy? Don't blame Jimbo-- he didn't write it. Is it pretty good? Well, Thank Jimbo for setting up the software to create it. If the article happens to be a bio, well-- see above. The machine and overall product of it is far more important to Jimbo than any small bits which don't work out with the simple rules.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Viridae]

YOu want credentials? Here is my very broad degree (not the actual degree name, that would be giving too much away)

BSc (hons)

THere you go - credentials. However I rarely edit within my field of study (too much like work for me) and more in random interests I might have (see avatar).

[Alison]

The website that Flipside gives for Andrew Morrow has a weird, extensively long page about Alison under her real name. There are only two reasons he would even have her last name, he could have done the research himself, or used Daniel Brandt's or FLIPSIDE's information on her to get her real name.

I was wondering when someone would point out the elephant in the room.

Yeah, he's got like 6 pages and counting and is forever trying to push it up the google rankings. I wonder what poor Alison C., the Australian poet thinks of it all.

But yeah - here's the site in all its masturbatory glory --> [redacted]

The original version was far more revealing of a rather sick psyche, IMO. Anyone who ever wanted to know just what's up with Andrew William Morrow need only read that screed to figure it all out. Seems like he got pwnd too many times by uppity women and now blames them for .. well, just about everything, really. He loves threatening women - indeed, he literally gets off on it. Too bad he threatened the wrong woman early last year and got seriously pwned all over again. History repeats itself. Indeed, he got rather carried away on his website last week and crossed that bright white line again. He knows the one I mean. Just as well my "friends" archived a copy of it on webcitation.

Oh, and yes, he was tipped off by Daniel Brandt about my alleged surname. He says so quite clearly in his .. umm ... "treatise". His first draft was ready hours after Hivemind was updated so thanks for that, Mr. Brandt (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

As for his emails - well, they're in a class of their own. I got the first few - enough to see that Daniel Brandt was also copied on them. I guess he's probably blackholed them ages ago, just as I now have. Here's a little extract from the last one I got before I consigned the rest to the bit bucket. This is the one where he starts mentioning my children;

I assure you that I have seen with my eyes the results of some of the worst child abuse that East San Jose has to offer and it is so horrendous as to challenged my faith in God. I pray to God that this web page never allows such minds to ever find your children (or my child, for that matter, and my child is in much greater danger than yours because my ex-wife used to help send them to the slammer for as long as possible and you can just imagine how motivated they would be to get their hands on my innocent daughter in order to exact a revenge on my ex-wife for her role in lengthening their sentences), but this outrageous insult of calling a hardworking intelligent man like Mr. Daniel Brandt a wazzock must be properly documented for posterity. He is a finer man than you will ever know and his reputation must also be protected.

You get the idea. Dreadfully pejorative term, that (for those not from the north of England).

In short; not only is he barking mad, he's also a rather sad, lonely little man.

This post has been edited by Alison:

[bluevictim]

I was looking at the current version of it and I thought at first it didn't sound like him. But after I scrolled down, I found this little freak tidbit about licking smegma and other creepy things:

Oooh…. oooh…. I am almost there. How to keep going? I will think about licking the smegma off of the penis of the Govenor of the Great State of California. The top cop in our State, the man who lead our Blue Knights in protecting our society from harm. The man who uses the same right hand to both jerk off and to *not* sign reprieves for those on Death row. How convenient. The Internet provides me with a picture of his big, furry penis.

Only the FBI and our bushy bush-bush president (I would like the snuggle my nose in in his bush as he sit at the Resolute Desk and make important decisions about how to kill 4000 healthy, disciplined, well-equipped, patriotic, loyal and trained young Americans of high morale and tens of thousands of non-Americans (who must be very un-American because, uh, we need to kill them and get their oily so we can get all oily and squirmy-wormy and snuggly)). Time to get the correct latitude and longitude and altitude programmed into out little love bomb programmed in correctly. OK, so now, Mr. Jack Goldsmith, you are a really smart guy and you used to help go after naughty criminals and you understand all about who controls the Internet. OK. So, now, I have my Cessna all fueled, checked out, engine running and ready to take off from the tarmac of Regan National… The strap on is ad-hoc and crudely calibrated, but it is reading the GPS information correctly. I got the numbers all programmed in and strapped on to a home-made 1000 lbs GBU.. but there is just one thing sir. You're really smart. Tell me just one thing…just one little thing again just one more time. What was I suppose to do with this?

And this sounds even weirder than him. What I didn't get to see was the thing about touching and making love to the letters of your name.

This post has been edited by bluevictim:

[Somey]

What I didn't get to see was the thing about touching and making love to the letters of your name.

I didn't make a copy, but I suspect that was a reference to his 5,000 sq.ft. fabrication plant in the Mojave Desert where he builds 12-ft.-tall 3D signage, mostly for masturbatory purposes. (That's presumably Alison, right there in the center of the "O.")

(IMG:http://www.hughjart.co.uk/letterpics/LOVE.gif)

Though to be honest, I don't see how he manages to find any kind of quality physical stimulation in these things, even if he does manage to get all oily and squirmy-wormy and snuggly with them.

To each his own, I guess!

[dogbiscuit]

Thanks for sharing - NOT!

Just off to scrub the inside of my eyeballs out. Yeuch!

[FLIPSIDE]

The website that Flipside gives for Andrew Morrow has a weird, extensively long page about Alison under her real name. There are only two reasons he would even have her last name, he could have done the research himself, or used Daniel Brandt's or FLIPSIDE's information on her to get her real name.

I was wondering when someone would point out the elephant in the room.

The order of discovery in your case was:

Wikipedia libels Brandt.
Alison and Fozzie ass out Amorrow.
Brandt finds and posts Alison's name to Hivemind.
Alison flips out, broadcasts her outrage in several locations on the net.
Amorrow reads Brandt's page, starts composing reduction charms of her name.
Wikipedia loses bluff, removes libel of Brandt.
Brandt removes Alison's name from Hivemind and destroys archive.
Flipside reads Alison's F-words all over the net, chuckles, gets last name from Amorrow's page, researches Amorrow, posts both real names to Haters Magazine.

Swatjester is a different story. Brandt and I discovered him independently and he posted his data while I was doing my list, prompting me to release it early.

This post has been edited by FLIPSIDE:

[carbuncle]

Well, I'm about as unimportant as an editor can get, but if you're collecting personal info, you can have mine. Someone, who is clearly not insane nor a stalker, has posted what they think is my info (having chosen one of their many IRL enemies). See here

Maybe they can help you on your project, since you're also clearly not insane nor a stalker, and would probably get along quite well.

[guy]

Welcome carbuncle. As far as we're concerned, every contributor here is important.

[Viridae]

The website that Flipside gives for Andrew Morrow has a weird, extensively long page about Alison under her real name. There are only two reasons he would even have her last name, he could have done the research himself, or used Daniel Brandt's or FLIPSIDE's information on her to get her real name.

I was wondering when someone would point out the elephant in the room.

The order of discovery in your case was:

Wikipedia libels Brandt.
Alison and Fozzie ass out Amorrow.
Brandt finds and posts Alison's name to Hivemind.
Alison flips out, broadcasts her outrage in several locations on the net.
Amorrow reads Brandt's page, starts composing reduction charms of her name.
Wikipedia loses bluff, removes libel of Brandt.
Brandt removes Alison's name from Hivemind and destroys archive.
Flipside reads Alison's F-words all over the net, chuckles, gets last name from Amorrow's page, researches Amorrow, posts both real names to Haters Magazine.

Swatjester is a different story. Brandt and I discovered him independently and he posted his data while I was doing my list, prompting me to release it early.

Amorrow was assed out of wikipedia years ago actually.

[wikiwhistle]

Amorrow was assed out of wikipedia years ago actually.

He keeps coming back though- allegedly (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Viridae]

Amorrow was assed out of wikipedia years ago actually.

He keeps coming back though- allegedly (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Well if you trust Alison/Lar - and I do - its pretty much confirmed.

This post has been edited by Viridae:

[Lar]

Amorrow was assed out of wikipedia years ago actually.

He keeps coming back though- allegedly (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Well if you trust Alison - and I do - its pretty much confirmed.

Make that "if you trust Alison and/or Lar" ...

[wikiwhistle]

He (Amorrow) is loopy by all accounts. And writes about himself in the third person frequently, which can't be a good sign.

[Viridae]

Amorrow was assed out of wikipedia years ago actually.

He keeps coming back though- allegedly (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Well if you trust Alison - and I do - its pretty much confirmed.

Make that "if you trust Alison and/or Lar" ...

How do you know I trust you (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

J/K, changed.

[EricBarbour]

But yeah - here's the site in all its masturbatory glory --> http://amorrow.wikidot.com/alison-cassidy
In short; not only is he barking mad, he's also a rather sad, lonely little man.

Mildly amusing. Needs work.

Every time a Wikipedia admin is outed, Wikipedia becomes more mature. By now, Wikipedia has matured quite a bit: it has gone from being the encyclopedia edited by 12 years olds to being the encyclopedia edited by 13 year olds......

Sounds about right. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Count DeMonet]

But yeah - here's the site in all its masturbatory glory --> http://amorrow.wikidot.com/alison-cassidy

Thanks, but apparently Babelfish ain't got a bat-shit insane to English option, so I'm non-the-wiser.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

not so much tl;dr

as

t (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) ;dr

[Alison]

Amorrow was assed out of wikipedia years ago actually.

He keeps coming back though- allegedly (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

O RLY? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

The order of discovery in your case was:

Wikipedia libels Brandt.
Alison and Fozzie ass out Amorrow.
Brandt finds and posts Alison's name to Hivemind.
Alison flips out, broadcasts her outrage in several locations on the net.
Amorrow reads Brandt's page, starts composing reduction charms of her name.
Wikipedia loses bluff, removes libel of Brandt.
Brandt removes Alison's name from Hivemind and destroys archive.
Flipside reads Alison's F-words all over the net, chuckles, gets last name from Amorrow's page, researches Amorrow, posts both real names to Haters Magazine.

Swatjester is a different story. Brandt and I discovered him independently and he posted his data while I was doing my list, prompting me to release it early.

So you got my details from a stalker's page, huh? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) And you find it amusing? As has been pointed out again and again, Amorrow was "assed out" years back, not only from Wikipedia, but he was found too freaky-weird for here, too. And he was laughed off ED, too, so go figure.

Here's a free hint, and this is a bit of information that neither Mr. Brandt nor Mr. Morrow seem to have discovered. Are you ready for this?

I don't live in Cupertino, CA. I only work there.

Exciting, huh? Gonna change your site, get a scoop on the other guys? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

[FLIPSIDE]

Gonna change your site, get a scoop on the other guys? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

Nah. I'm busy researching Dreadstar, Naerii, East718, and I just outed Bigtimepeace. Your pal East must still be riled about Majorly. Either that, or he's just trying to prove his leet Jesuit East Coast Rap skillz by buffing any replacements I make to my user page.

[wikiwhistle]

Amorrow was assed out of wikipedia years ago actually.

He keeps coming back though- allegedly (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

O RLY? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

I suppose I'm just sceptical a little after the other thread about how many people are blocked as socks, when they aren't. On the other hand, if they have anything like the unique writing style of his website, I expect his edits are quite distinctive (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[east.718]

Nah. I'm busy researching Dreadstar, Naerii, East718, and I just outed Bigtimepeace. Your pal East must still be riled about Majorly. Either that, or he's just trying to prove his leet Jesuit East Coast Rap skillz by buffing any replacements I make to my user page.

Hey, I know you. I read one of your articles on hatersmag after somebody gave me a Black Swan CD in Boston and I kind of liked it.

I'm a bit curious as to what I did to draw your attention though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

[FLIPSIDE]

Nah. I'm busy researching Dreadstar, Naerii, East718, and I just outed Bigtimepeace. Your pal East must still be riled about Majorly. Either that, or he's just trying to prove his leet Jesuit East Coast Rap skillz by buffing any replacements I make to my user page.

Hey, I know you. I read one of your articles on hatersmag after somebody gave me a Black Swan CD in Boston and I kind of liked it.

I'm a bit curious as to what I did to draw your attention though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Just a discussion page revert on User:contextflexed. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...xed&action=edit

I was puzzled, hoping it was just one of a giant line of generic reverts. Glad you liked the article. Black Swan is great. IrishGuy and OrangeMike don't like Haters Magazine, so an edit war turned into the deletion of my account and a mass outing of editors over a matter of two links. IrishGuy was trying to make an Unperson of both Termanology and Skitzofreniks, so I started fighting it out like a war. Over the past two days I have met a bunch of interesting people in the process of unveiling the identities of anyone related to reversions of my good faith edits.

Maybe I am being too raw about it. But I am getting a fair number of requests now from friends, and strangers who have been mistreated on WP by so many Halo gamers, and hundreds of hits from the wikipedia anon IP users. A lot of WP Admins are bitterly struggling with their own worthlessness and taking it out on qualified editors, publishers, emcees, software developers on WP. I am throwing my hat in with them and getting some advantage out of it while giving some advantage. I am relieved not to have a notability battle or a COI battle with a fellow East Coast rap enthusiast.