I wonder why Prioryman  (T-C-L-K-R-D) AKA Vanished user 03 AKA ChriO hates WR so much?



To me it is also interesting that Prioryman AKA Vanished user 03 AKA ChrisO used the word "anus of Wikipedia". Could somebody please help me to understand what is "anus of Wikipedia". I mean I know what is anus of Prioryman AKA Vanished user 03 AKA ChrisO, but my English is not good enough to understand what is "anus of Wikipedia", and if wikipedia has an anus, does it mean that wikipedia could have hemorrhoid too?

You forgot AKA L'ecrivant (T-C-L-K-R-D) and of course Helatrobus (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

I did not know about these two accounts. Interesting!
But still could somebody please explain to me what "anus of Wikipedia" means. I asked this question without sarcasm. I really never heard such expression, and do not know what it means. Thanks.

He is saying that WR emits feces and such foul waste.

Almost without exception the editors in Wikipedia who complain the loudest and most continuously about WR are agenda-driven POV-pushers who have had their dishonest agendas, or those of their friends, exposed in WR. More honest Wikipedia editors will usually say something along the lines of, "WR has a lot of garbage, but also sometimes makes a good point".

You're giving him way too much credit. He just heard the metaphor "a of X" somewhere and is parroting it here because he thinks it makes him sound cool - of course he doesn't even know how to properly use this metaphor (I was wondering wth he meant as well).

If Wikipedia was going to be taken seriously, it needs to stop letting people restart under new names. There is a clear "clean start" policy that says you cannot return to your own ways, edit under the same areas, continue the same disputes, but every single one of these people violate it and should be banned as such. It is blatant socking and yet people are allowing.

It already does -- selectively. There is no rule at WP that is not enforced selectively, depending on who the alpha dogs are at any given moment.

With all due respect, Charles... he's actually saying that Wikipedia (not Wikipedia Review) is a sort of living organism that takes in nutrients (editors and their content), digests them and becomes a stronger, more powerful organism. Of course, any organism that grows through consumption must also take a shit once in a while, to expel the unneeded by-products of the metabolic process.

Wikipedia's "anus", therefore, is where the unneeded by-products are expelled. I guess the anus would be a fleshy muscle composed of "Articles for deletion" and "Ban discussions" and pages reserved for "Jimbo breaking up with mistresses", if we were to take this personification the least bit seriously.

And he clearly said that Wikipedia Review is thus a cancerous wart on the anus of Wikipedia.

(Of course, a wart is a benign skin growth that is not subject to being cancerous, so his intelligence is rather questionable from the get-go.)

So in other words, he believes wikipedia needs its anus, anus is a good thing to have. It is needed "to expel the unneeded by-products of the metabolic process" , and WR that is a "cancerous" grow on that anus prevents it from working properly.
Thank you, Greg. Now I understood what he meant.