Someone doesn't like WR Options

[Eva Destruction]

Any idea what's prompted this? Even the Usual Suspects at WR haven't done anything particularly controversial lately that I can see.

[Apathetic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nship/Majorly_2 (WR's Alex)

[Eva Destruction]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nship/Majorly_2 (WR's Alex)

Yeah, but WR is only mentioned once in the whole thing. Since Alex/Majorly is possibly the blandest contributor here – as Awbrey has often pointed out in rather strong terms – it doesn't seem enough to prompt that kind of flare-up.

[dtobias]

Ottava Rima has been doing his best to stir up BADSITES hysteria against WR lately.

[Ahypori]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nship/Majorly_2 (WR's Alex)

Yeah, but WR is only mentioned once in the whole thing. Since Alex/Majorly is possibly the blandest contributor here – as Awbrey has often pointed out in rather strong terms – it doesn't seem enough to prompt that kind of flare-up.

I assume Dlohcierekim was simply curious to know about why some people have a problem with WR, and Ottava Rima appears to have turned the thread into a rant about how much he hates WR.

I surprised OR isn't opposing Majorly.

[CharlotteWebb]

Since Alex/Majorly is possibly the blandest contributor here

I thought that distinction belonged to Lar.

[Jon Awbrey]

Since Alex/Majorly is possibly the blandest contributor here

I thought that distinction belonged to Lar.

No, it would have to be Daniel Blandt.

Ja Ja

[weburiedoursecretsinthegarden]

Since Alex/Majorly is possibly the blandest contributor here

I've not even started posting yet

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Any idea what's prompted this? Even the Usual Suspects at WR haven't done anything particularly controversial lately that I can see.

What you have here is your basic wikipediot believing that getting a web site described by another wikipediot is superior to doing some independent reading and understanding.

I never go there. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

…like typing in a URL is equivalent to moving into the Amityville house or something.

Whether wikipedia is breeding that infantile dependence, or just exploiting it, may still be up for debate.

[Milton Roe]

Any idea what's prompted this? Even the Usual Suspects at WR haven't done anything particularly controversial lately that I can see.

Heh.

WR's remit, as I understand it, is to be critical of wikipedia, which is an entirely healthy goal IMO. Particularly as criticism is so often stifled by the dead hand of consensus and perennial here on wikipedia. WR shoould only be a "red flag" for those who feel that critical debate needs to be stamped out as a "dramah". One very good recent example is the exposure of ArbCom member Sam Blaketer's deception, something that was clearly kept hidden here on wikipedia until exposed at WR. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not healthy when a majority is vitriol. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Is a majority "vitriol"? Is criticism always vitriolic in your eyes? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between healthy criticism (which definitely can be found at WR, too) and "Let's get rid of Admin X"-threads (which aren't nearly as common anymore, but they do still happen). --Conti|✉ 16:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Since most of the "Let's get rid of Admin X" threads on WR have been about admins who were indeed later got rid of-- we have two possiblities: Either 1) They listen to WR on WP , or else 2) they don't, BUT we were right all along, about the basic rottenness of Admin X.

Either possiblity is too awful to contemplate, if you don't like WR. Strangely though, there exist 1300 admins on WP, and by my count, we're therefore severely short of "Get rid of admin X!" threads, if all we do is criticize any and all good WP admins, for doing necessary things. I don't think we do. Does WP think we pick our Dick of Distinction candidates by the roll of a D&D die?

Anybody who shows up on WR after being banned for blatant vandalizing for no particularly good reason but to make a mess, gets little sympathy.

Ottava is still pissed off. He thinks that innocent persecuted people should never fight back, and that when people DO fight back and won't take it anymore, that means they deserved what was done to them in the first place:

Because nobody has ever been unjustly banned, and no banned user has ever had anything truthful or meaningful to say about anything remotely related to Wikipedia, so any forum where any of them can be found ought to be cast off the edge of the Earth. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That is one of the falsiest arguments ever. If they were unjustly banned, they wouldn't be seeking revenge and trying to disrupt. They also wouldn't make the kinds of attacks they do. They wouldn't hold multiple accounts and brag about it. They wouldn't put websites compiling personal data or mocking WMF members whenever something happens. These are [not?] the actions of the innocent. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What a dope Ottava is. People seeking revenge for a wrong are capable of all kinds of nasty things. I'm glad to say. The world improves as wronged people learn to protest. That's almost the story of history. Oh wait-- I forgot that one of Ottava's favorite trolls is that the world hasn't improved in the last two millennia. (Why he ran for admin in that case, I fail to see.... )

In any case, you'll know WR has actually hit the skids as a non-constructive source of criticism, when you can't find any comment here to the effect that WP ever does anything right, and has no aspects that are worthy of praise. I don't think we're there, yet. Though I personally have been accused of being a Kool Aid drinker more than once for drawing attention to some of the interesting, well done, or emergently cool aspects of WP.

[gomi]

Ottava Rima has been doing his best to stir up BADSITES hysteria against WR lately.

Lately? Ottava brings up the Review whenever there is an RFAR of someone who participates here, and at all other opportunities besides. Ottava also has the distinction of being one of the very few people ever banned from here (for hysterical religion-baiting, if I recall).

[dtobias]

Lately? Ottava brings up the Review whenever there is an RFAR of someone who participates here, and at all other opportunities besides.

Though, unlike two years ago, this no longer leads to a big clique pileon where the anti-WR crowd overwhelms everybody else.

[Jon Awbrey]

In any case, you'll know WR has actually hit the skids as a non-constructive source of criticism, when you can't find any comment here to the effect that WP ever does anything right, and has no aspects that are worthy of praise. I don't think we're there, yet. Though I personally have been accused of being a Kool Aid drinker more than once for drawing attention to some of the interesting, well done, or emergently cool aspects of WP.

Ach, Dein Kampf

Ja Ja

[Lar]

Yeah, but WR is only mentioned once in the whole thing. Since Alex/Majorly is possibly the blandest contributor here – as Awbrey has often pointed out in rather strong terms – it doesn't seem enough to prompt that kind of flare-up.

Blandest contributor here? The very idea! Why, I ought to make a very strong remark. Maybe I will.

I thought that distinction belonged to Lar.

Thankyouverymuch!

[dtobias]

And now Grace Note has come out of whatever cave he lives in to start whining about how WR is a bunch of Nazis again, and has the nerve to call me tiresome for going on about BADSITES.

[Viridae]

Why was Grace note banned again?

[Somey]

Well, I'm an admin here on Wikipedia Review, and I can say with total assurance and authority that Ottava was, indeed, banned for trolling incessantly to the point that he'd annoyed pretty much every active member. Jenna/Lara is 100-percent correct about that. Though actually, it's not just "pretty much" - there's no need for a qualifier on that one, unless you want to say "absolutely everyone."

And what's all this about how I "directly lied about (his) interaction with BLPs?" This is the first I've heard of it. Basically his interaction with everything is completely negative, AFAIK, so what's there to lie about?

Why was Grace note banned again?

Because he's a thoroughly unpleasant individual, wasn't it? I wasn't around when all that went down, but it's as good a reason as any.


Some of the other "comments" in that thread are just plain nonsense. They're so cute when they do that!

[maggot3]

For anyone on WP not familiar, Ottava Rima first came here to discuss some stuff about Moulton IIRC which was pretty reasonable, got a bit annoyed with the response, and then left for a bit. He came back and started posting, after making some remarks on IRC about trolling here, only stuff about politics from a strong Catholic bent - anti-abortion/anti-gay stuff. He got increasingly vitriolic, rude, and hateful as he posted more, until he eventually got banned and started getting pissed about it. As far as I know, he is strongly anti-gay/anti-abortion etc.

At least that's how I remember it, feel free to remember it differently

This post has been edited by maggot3: Thu 28th May 2009, 8:14am

[aeon]

Any idea what's prompted this? Even the Usual Suspects at WR haven't done anything particularly controversial lately that I can see.

What do you mean, "any idea what's prompted this?"? This is WT:RFA we're talking about here. It's like a Wikipedia adaption of /b/ minus the pornography.

This post has been edited by aeon: Thu 28th May 2009, 8:53am

[Son of a Yeti]

Any idea what's prompted this? Even the Usual Suspects at WR haven't done anything particularly controversial lately that I can see.

A voice in the discussion:

Whatever's said on WR isn't secret or unlogged, as on IRC, so why not go and take a look for yourself? Nobody will bite you. Even jimbo posts there occasionally. You might even learn something. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Does jimbo really post here?