The Old Man Murray flap Options

[EricBarbour]

Didn't anyone notice this?
SchuminWeb (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who has apparently held a grudge against OMM writer Erik Wolpaw,
somehow managed to get the Wikipedia article about OMM (an old gaming site) deleted.

Schumin tried before in January.
The only vote I can see is from MelanieN (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Girlfriend? Sock?

Among the results:

Boing Boing had considerable coverage of it. Note some of the comments:

Sometimes I wish I could get back money I donated to them. I doubt I'll ever donate to wiki again.

This is standard Wikipedia. It's such a corrupt incestuous sausagefest. 'Free Encyclopedia' my ass.
I've given up even trying to bother getting useful info past the neckbeards who run the place - there are just too many hidden toes that are easily trod upon.

Oops! Neckbeards, ha ha.

And here it is on Slashdot. Result: similar comments.

You know what should make your scratch your head? The problem you have just described at the same time happens to be the very essence and fundamental principle of Wikipedia. That anyone, including stupid morons, trolls with hidden agenda (competitors), and outright psychopaths can edit it any and every second, repeatedly and infinitely.
It follows that Wikipedia is, and has inherently been from the very beginning, a fundamentally flawed experiment. Thanks god Google is starting to realize this and is moving the Wikipedia result to SERPS position #5, while the first 4 links point to the authoritative or official site (if one exists).

I used to contribute a fair amount to Wikipedia to get my brain going in the morning. I quit doing so a couple years ago, because the whole infighting and "notability" crap was ridiculous. Every single character from a book, movie, cartoon, video game, anime (pokemon, etc) gets a many-paged detailed entry while real people quickly get the brush because someone gets a thorn in their ass over something. And those "somethings" are hard to pin down. Some entries surprisingly don't exist, while others (someone with a podcast you've never heard of or who is supposedly some self-described social media expert, etc) gets an entry. That idiot from "Hot For Words" even has a wikipedia entry.

Firstly, I won't be donating to Wikipedia again. This is not because I'm an OMM fanboy taking my bat home in a huff, although I am also that. But actually, it's because this story has made me look into Wikipedia more, and apparently this shit is rife. I guess I should have known that, but I'd always been scared to check because I still had some faith in one human endeavour and was happy to let things stay that way, until I felt some pressing need to know otherwise. Well, game over on that front. Back to total misanthropy for me.
Secondly, it's actually quite an interesting read because the Schumin guy who nominated for deletion, is evidently really, really, pathetic. And not in a kind of sad and disappointing, move along cowboy way, but actually to a degree that's almost gripping. This article highlights an almost iconic exemplar of the form of pathetic, to the degree that it's actually compelling.
To whit, and as best as I can tell from summaries, a man who is mocked - for being pathetic no less - by a popular gaming culture website waits a DECADE for revenge, whilst the world moves on around him, and the revengee behind the site goes on to pen dialogue for a video game that many people rightly consider one of the genuinely enduring classics of the new age.

I've seen a lot of buzz about this on gaming forums.

Mr. Schumin is quite the classic Wikipedia admin-troll. Look at the vote in his 2007 RFA.
Now look at the vote when he first tried in 2006.
There are numerous complaints about him in AN/I and Wikiquette.
And btw, he cooperates with Cirt when Scientology articles come up.....

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Michaeldsuarez]

This is just a bump to say that Schumin recently retired from Wikipedia. After his several flagrant abuses of power, I can't say that I'll miss him, but it's too bad he couldn't have stuck around long enough to go through what would've been a very lulzy arbitration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=529472366:

The accepted [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb|case]] is hereby suspended pending [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb's]] return to editing. SchuminWeb is instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case; doing so will be grounds for removal of his administrator userrights. Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a [[WP:RFA|new request for adminship]].

If he returns, he'll either have to go through Arbitration in order to remain a sysop or resign his sysop tools in order to avoid Arbitration. If he doesn't return within three months, he'll be desysopped.

[Retrospect]

If he returns, he'll either have to go through Arbitration in order to remain a sysop or resign his sysop tools in order to avoid Arbitration. If he doesn't return within three months, he'll be desysopped.

Yes, sounds ruddy fine in theory. But there's nothing to stop him socking and becoming an admin again, is there?

[Ottava]

If he returns, he'll either have to go through Arbitration in order to remain a sysop or resign his sysop tools in order to avoid Arbitration. If he doesn't return within three months, he'll be desysopped.

Yes, sounds ruddy fine in theory. But there's nothing to stop him socking and becoming an admin again, is there?

You mean "Yes, it sounds very fine in theory, but there is nothing to stop him from socking and becoming an admin once more" right?

Otherwise, you butchered everything. Even your use of "ruddy" was wrong. Ruddy means "damned" and not "damn." A real Brit would know this.

[Retrospect]

Otherwise, you butchered everything. Even your use of "ruddy" was wrong. Ruddy means "damned" and not "damn." A real Brit would know this.

Look, we all know you're ruddy illiterate. Why do you keep proving it again and again?

[Ottava]

Otherwise, you butchered everything. Even your use of "ruddy" was wrong. Ruddy means "damned" and not "damn." A real Brit would know this.

Look, we all know you're ruddy illiterate. Why do you keep proving it again and again?

You mean "a ruddy illiterate person." Once again, you used the word "ruddy" in an improper manner.

[Retrospect]

You mean "a ruddy illiterate person." Once again, you used the word "ruddy" in an improper manner.

Isn't it bloody stupid to make a false "correction" to someone's grammatically correct English?

[Ottava]

You mean "a ruddy illiterate person." Once again, you used the word "ruddy" in an improper manner.

Isn't it bloody stupid to make a false "correction" to someone's grammatically correct English?

You haven't posted a proper sentence.

[Retrospect]

You haven't posted a proper sentence.

Please take a course in basic English grammar.

[Ottava]

You haven't posted a proper sentence.

Please take a course in basic English grammar.

Take one where? To the same place the missing parts of your sentences can be found? You can use this page to brush up on the basics of English grammar. You appear to be fundamentally unable to comprehend how to compose a complete sentence.

[Detective]

You can use this page to brush up on the basics of English grammar.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Ottava's been drinking too much Jimbojuice. You should never quote Wikipedia as an authoritative reference on anything.

[Ottava]

You can use this page to brush up on the basics of English grammar.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Ottava's been drinking too much Jimbojuice. You should never quote Wikipedia as an authoritative reference on anything.

I never said it was authoritative. I did say that it has the basics. It does a decent job at defining various types of clauses.

[Retrospect]

I never said it was authoritative. I did say that it has the basics. It does a decent job at defining various types of clauses.

So you think that WP does have decent articles? In that case, read it and ruddy learn something yourself instead of making an even bigger laughing stock of yourself by "correcting" me.

[Ottava]

I never said it was authoritative. I did say that it has the basics. It does a decent job at defining various types of clauses.

So you think that WP does have decent articles? In that case, read it and ruddy learn something yourself instead of making an even bigger laughing stock of yourself by "correcting" me.

"ypur" post is as laughably horrible as your other ones. There is just more and more gobblygook every time I look at this forum.

[Retrospect]

There is just more and more gobblygook every time I look at this forum.

Yes, I've noticed that. It comes mostly from someone with a ruddy yellow cat atavar. If you don't like the contents of this site, go away and leave it to the grown-ups.

Oh, and it's "gobbledygook", not "gobblygook". The latter is a neologism:

Most usually referring to some inane math equation (or a section of one) on the board, but can be used in other situations in which someone understands something but doesn't feel like going through the process of saying it out loud.

[Ottava]

Oh, and it's "gobbledygook", not "gobblygook". The latter is a neologism:

Most usually referring to some inane math equation (or a section of one) on the board, but can be used in other situations in which someone understands something but doesn't feel like going through the process of saying it out loud.

You are obviously not a native speaker of English if you never heard the word before and had to look it up at Urban Dictionary. You would also know that there is no "set" spelling for a term that is mostly a noise - a garbled version of "gobble". Only a non-native speaker would have responded in the above manner. The word "neologism" doesn't mean what you think it means.