User talk:Emperor

From Encyc
Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Emperor/Archive 1



Thanks, done. Emperor 03:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


I am going to go over to Encyc:Policies to suggest some policies which I think that we are all doing anyway, just to try to get some things down. You can of course ignore them all and such, but I thought that it might be good to have a bit of a basis for doing things. Blissyu2 15:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds better than me just handing policies down from on high. The good thing is, it's a wiki, so we'll all get to chip in. Emperor 22:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

cc logo and settings

that might be sufficient information?

I think so. I'm probably going to wait until Wikipedia makes it official. The whole point of going GFDL in the first place was to be compatible with Wikipedia. Emperor 00:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


This is a small wiki, but it already has serious problems with vandalism perpetrated by some angry person. Tex 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not usually this bad. Luckily we have some excellent administrators helping out. Emperor 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Proabviouc's real identity

I noticed that you protected a number of pages, including Proabviouc. I also note that in its protected form it lists his real name and which school that he attended. As this has no bearing on the article at all, and serves only as a smear campaign against him, I would suggest that it should be removed. I assume that this was an oversight on your part and was unintentional. Blissyu2 07:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, cross that, as I noticed that it wasn't actually locked, so could edit out the offensive bits myself. I think that DB might have inserted that stuff as some kind of revenge. Blissyu2 07:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Page moving

WoW has paid us a visit twice, as I've e-mailed you. Will you kindly do something about the ability to move pages, like perhaps restrict that to a certain user group so he doesn't keep striking? (I don't know why he bothers, we're NOT Wikipedia nor are we affiliated with him)

Some action here on stopping him would help a lot. Nathan 11:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Goddammit. I can't even revert this, this or this due to some stupid database error. I have better things to do than "babysit" this guy. Nathan 11:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it has something to do with the Parser hooks extension. Do we really need it? Someone requested it a long time ago but all it does is make trouble as far as I can tell. Emperor 15:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
ParserFunctions? It helps with templates. Have you tried locking page-moving by doing adding this to LocalSettings.php?

$wgGroupPermissions['user']['move'] = false;
$wgGroupPermissions['user']['move-subpages'] = false;
$wgGroupPermissions['user']['move-rootuserpages'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['move'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['move-subpages'] = true;

Nathan 01:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Am I nuts or can regular users already not move pages? Emperor 23:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, new users (like this account) can create pages in mainspace but cannot move them. The tab is missing and when you try Special:MovePage, you get an error. When the account matures, it may be a different story, though ... - Alliecat 02:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah. I think I know what's going on. WoW (or whomever it is) creates those accounts and just lets them sit until he can use them to pagemove. Nathan 08:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

How is it that this got moved? I protected moves of that page to sysops only. Nathan 01:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nathan - it's not getting pagemoved. It's getting edited so that the page contains a redirect to some other bogus page. It's still staying in place. BTW - check the list of accounts here. I've already blocked one or two obvious ones, but just scan over them to be sure - Alison 01:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Silly me. I didn't notice was a redirect. Hmm. Right, going to check account list, thanks. Nathan 01:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking out for this place. If you still want me to add that code to LocalSettings I guess I can tomorrow. Seems harmless enough. Emperor 03:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It will help curtail the moving. As for the redirecting, no idea. Nathan 06:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked a shitload more, as well as two of Jonas Rand (*sigh* This is starting to get old now, can't the kid buy a clue or something? he's being an annoying brat now). Please block creation of new accounts, this is really the only way I can see this as getting curtailed. Look it up on if you need to. I seriously don't know why they're bothering us, we're just a small wiki, we're not even wikipedia ffs. Nathan 02:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Relatively minor headaches to have the greatest encyclopedia-like reference website there is! Emperor 03:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How about marking me as a bot?

then i will not so easily be shown in the recent changes. you know, keep the crazies out of the main area. lol; something like that. :) Wikademia

Seems deceptive somehow. Emperor 05:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

si .org design

how you like the newish main page at ?? and also.. uhh.. there was something else...... for got.. maybe later. :) Wikademia

Nice. Can't go wrong with a clown. Emperor 05:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

oh yeah.

i was banned from illogicopedia until like november 14 - -- for _1_ page blank i think - - JEEZ. and it is illogicopedia - i guess their policies aren't supposed to make sense. they ought to fork the big wiki. woops. Wikademia

That's a shame. It's not a very long ban though; should be easy to wait it out. Emperor 04:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

amazon links

if I start writing articles about books... and put an amazon associate link at the bottom of the page using my amazon associates id... is that alright? thanks. Wikademia

Good question. On the one hand, I don't want this place to seem commercialized. On the other, whatever motivates people to contribute to Wikipedia isn't working the same way here. I think I need to think about this more and get some more opinions. Emperor 01:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Between this and the other page.. I'll take this as a "hmm.. maybe try it out a bit... but keep it classy". I agree. It _MUST_ be done with class... otherwise, it seems to me that it won't work in the long term, and perhaps/probably also in the short term. So I might try it out some, and we can always remove them later, or whenever... Wikademia


Hey thanks! Emperor 03:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

multi lingual Encyc hub?

how about a multi-lingual hub? then when there are a certain number of articles in a language move them to their own wiki as a subdomain as a part of a wiki family. Wikademia

Too much work. If Encyc hits critical mass maybe we can hire a professional programmer. I'm all tapped out just keeping what we have maintained. Emperor 03:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

interwiki maps

if you'd nominate and and too that would be appreciated. I am currently banned from most WikiMedia sites.. perhaps all. I mean WIkiCommunist sites.. no i mean wikimedia... no.. yes.. no.. yes... umm.. i mean jimbaos google juice machine... no.... yes.. no.. yes... no.. .umm Wikademia

Maybe in a few weeks. I don't want to muddy the waters by considering more than one site at once.
Can you tell them you're sorry and try to get unbanned? Emperor 17:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not sorry, and I won't lie. Are there some ways in the past the I should have acted differently, probably. Am I willing to admit that and those. Yes. Am I sorry? No. I should be unbanned. If we want to look at wrongings and grievances, they are the ones who should be sorry in totality it seems. I don't even want an apology, but I do want to be unbanned. If anyone wants an apology and desires to wallow in narcissistic wounds then I'll gladly stay banned until they get over it. I mean this all kindly and gently, I should mention. :) Wikademia
I hope there's some mutually agreeable way the two sides can resolve this. I agree, apologies are probably not necessary. Emperor
Mutually agreeable is usually best it seems to me. Wikademia
Speaking of, what ever happened to Moulton? Emperor 02:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Dunno... perhaps still at MIT? He can write all the articles he wants here and at Wikademia... I think I saw a post from him on WR not too long ago... and also some Twitter posts... maybe a few months ago.... But he has MicroMuse... so Wikademia is evidently un-necessary. Oh well. Wikademia

User:Jonas Rand

Wow! That didn't take all that long :O - Alison 04:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Good news

I started some articles and would like to be an administrator now. Thanks. ChildofMidnight 21:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome and thanks for your contribution. I'd rather not make you an administrator today, but I appreciate your interest. Emperor 00:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
You kids sure know how to make a fellow feel welcome. A bad block and a series of bad reversions in the first 24 hours. Kudos. It's just like "home" here on [Encyc]. ChildofMidnight 00:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Would an imaginary cup of tea or piece of cake make you feel any better? Emperor 00:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Would respectful communication among adults without silly metaphorical asides about tea and cookies be too much to ask for from a site that claims to be distinct from the bureaucratic monstrosity that Wikipedia has become?
Yes, I get the feeling that you had a bad experience at Wikipedia. I was trying to lighten the mood by making a joke about their tea and cookies.
So anyway, I can see how being blocked and unblocked might have cheesed you off a little bit, and I'm sorry if Nathan or I came off as disrespectful. What is it that you wish to communicate? Emperor 01:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, let's see now, I came here and attempted to add some new articles and to improve others only to find myself blocked by an admin you greatly admire while several edits I made were reverted without any explanation. I left a message to your boob of an admin buddy, but received no response, and he subsequently deleted a new article I created in good faith about him and his exploits. (which seems to me to violate the basic principle of using admin tools for in content disputes). So if the best you can do is offer fake tea, then it's abundantly clear why this wiki is in its present state.
I have sympathy for you because you did create some worthwhile content, and it seems to me that Wikipedia may have kicked you around some. You have to keep in mind that some of us here have put in over two years on this project, and are very protective of it. We're not completely new to the internet either, and from experience have found that new users who come in guns blazing on day one are usually trouble.
I'd be interested to hear perspectives from some of the other Encyc users. Alison is a very experienced Wikipedia admin, and Wikademia runs his own website. Emperor 02:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


Per the Community portal, real names are not to be used unless generally known. Am I to assume that someone pursuing a vendetta and attempting to "out" someone on your site will have such posts removed or redacted, and be warned? Or do you plan to allow this sort of behavior? thanks in advance - KillerChihuahua 18:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Tracy, you are not going to come here and bully people the way you do on WMF projects. I have an unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of my own life. For reasons unbeknownst to me, you saw fit to become a coercive actor in the true story of my life, and your role in it cannot be erased from the history books. --Barry Kort 19:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm a supporter of anonymity on the internet. I'm also pretty clueless about what's going on here. I figure Barry knows what he's doing. What's the problem again? Maybe if you just ask him nicely he'll do what you want. BTW, I mainly use the name Auggie to appear friendlier. Auggie 19:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Any time Ms. Walker wants to negotiate mutually agreeable terms of engagement, I stand ready to complete our recently suspended Truth and Reconciliation Process. Moulton 19:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked him not to refer to me by that name, I have never acknowledged, used, or given permission for him or anyone else to use that name to refer to me; he persists. I am quite certain Moulton knows exactly what he is doing. He is harassing me and others by attempted and repeated "outing" of what he believes to be our r/l names. As you see, he is not respecting my request that he refer to me as KC or KillerChihuahua; yet he accuses me of "bullying" for making such simple requests and asking that such requests be honored. KillerChihuahua 20:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Nor did I give you and your cronies in IDCab permission to publish outrageously false and defamatory characterizations of me. Nor did Rosalind Picard or James Tour give you or your cronies in IDCab permission to publish outrageously false and defamatory characterizations of them. Your egregious violations of the Wikimedia Policy on Biographies of Living People are your responsibility, Tracy Walker, and I am holding you personally accountable for your outrageous conduct on WMF-sponsored sites. --Barry Kort 21:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I respectfully refer you to your own Principle #9: Encyc should not hurt people - Users are discouraged from publishing personal information or conducting extended campaigns to present living people in a bad light. KillerChihuahua 20:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • If you think the truth hurts, Ms. Walker, try living with the painful consequences of powerful editors on Wikipedia publishing outrageously false and defamatory characterizations of identifiable living persons. Moulton 21:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Why are you holding me responsible for what others have done? Why do you engage in petty vengeance? I blocked you. I have no apologies to make about that. I have not "publish[ed] outrageously false and defamatory characterizations of identifiable living persons" or anything like that. I have repeatedly asked you to provide a dif of me doing so; you have never, ever done so. This is because such a dif does not exist, and your pretense that your retaliatory "outing" is somehow justified by my supposed wrongdoing is merely a fiction you use to justify your petty harassment of me. I ask again, where is the dif of me doing any such thing? KillerChihuahua 21:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Moulton, what is your reason for repeatedly stating this name? Auggie 22:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Because it's her name. Moulton 22:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
That seems like a weak reason to keep calling her it. How about we use her nickname, "KillerChihuahua"? Auggie 22:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Under Section 230 immunity, individual authors are personally liable for what they write and publish on WMF sites. Authors who publish false and defamatory characterizations of living people on WMF sites are identified by their real name, and are not entitled to anonymity or protection from WMF in cases of tortious authorship of false and defamatory characterizations of living people. User:FeloniousMonk (Paul Mitchell) was unanimously adjudged guilty by ArbCom of abusing his power and publishing "meritless accusations against other editors on multiple occasions." But Paul Mitchell did not act alone. He acted in concert with his allied editors of IDCab, including Ms. Walker and a dozen others. Moulton 23:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question. Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to do it. Auggie 23:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Auggie, your question was, "How about we use her nickname, "KillerChihuahua"? If we're gonna call her by an absurd false name, as if this were some kind of lunatic psychodrama in a post-modern theater of the absurd, how about we use this ridiculous fake name instead? Moulton 23:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) that's already been answered, and on one of those links, in fact. In context: "He's angry, and he's getting back. Otherwise, why would he call a Wikipedia administrator, a fairly mild one, when he's prevented from using her real name here, and when she's conducting herself civilly and even beginning to participate in a mediation, a Death Eater Bitch? And revert war to maintain that edit? She wasn't going after him, and she merely made a decision on Wikipedia that he disagreed with, a decision years ago, implementing consensus, which, had she done nothing, would have ended up happening anyway, with someone else pushing the button. No, he's angry, that's the bottom line, and he's using Wikiversity as a cudgel." --Abd on the English Wikversity Colloquium KillerChihuahua 00:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Are either of you opposed, in principle, to the use of an absurd false name to describe the Wikipedia user "KillerChihuahua"? If we can come up with something clean maybe we can all agree on it. Auggie 00:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Death Eater" is a perfectly fine synonym of the obsolescent "Killer" and "Bitch" is a perfectly acceptable term for a female dog who is old enough to know who she's screwing around with. Moulton 01:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I note that the curious character in the gnarly dog costume has not registered an objection to characterizing the role she is playing in our local lunatic psychodrama. Moulton 15:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity: which one of you believes in Intelligent Design and which one believes in Evolution? Or is it more complicated than that? Auggie 00:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know anyone who believes in Intelligent Design as IDCab construes it. I only believe in intelligent design in the context of Systems Engineering. When we were planning the evolution of the telephone network at Bell Labs, we did our work as intelligently as we knew how, so as to avoid the kind of absurd blunders that Paul Mitchell, Tracy Walker, and their foolhardy allies in IDCab committed and perpetuated for years on end. Moulton 01:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
KC, you seem to be under a misapprehension. Encyc does not prohibit the addition of links to sites that give someone's real or presumed name. On the contrary, Emperor has repeatedly performed desysops and bans to prevent the removal of these links. --Checker 10:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
That's not really the story, but whatever. Auggie 11:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it? If I remove a link to a site that gives someone's real or presumed name, will you block me? If another admin blocks me, will you unblock me and rebuke them? If someone restores that link, will you revert and block that editor? --Checker 07:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Links to Wikipedia Review, Hivemind, WMF sites, or Facebook seem reasonably normative for a Wiki that is a derivative of Wikipedia and the associated Wikisphere. If we pretend that significant portions of the real world don't exist (and thus can't be mentioned), we potentially transform this project into a fairy tale in which everything has to be mapped into metaphors. I have nothing against metaphors and poetic literature, but I'd like to know which model we are adopting here. Moulton 10:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This is the kind of project where we write happy little articles that offer an alternative to the sameness you will find on Wikipedia. Auggie 15:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In the New Testament, there were a bunch of lost souls whose process of learning and personal growth had become arrested. Along came a remarkably gifted teacher who taught each one of the lost souls by custom-crafting an instructive parable just for them, like a key fitting a lock. Perhaps some fine day I will discover how to custom craft an enlightening parable for each lost soul who is unable to learn by simply reading a conventional encyclopedia article. Moulton 15:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You seen to have some pretty high expectations regarding the ability of the written word to influence human behavior. I guess not too high, considering what the New Testament has done in the last 2000 years. It seems to me that the power of words has been somewhat diminished in this age of Abd-like word producers, but still, the belief that words carry power is one of the prime motivators underlying the compulsion many feel to edit and control wiki encyclopedia articles. Perhaps if we can understand this belief better, we can devise ways to make Encyc a more compelling option for all of the would-be content generators out there. Auggie 17:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't multimedia content the reason it was named MediaWiki? Auggie 17:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I dunno. Ask Brion Vibber. All I know is that I cannot embed streaming media hosted from off-site servers. And that is teh suck. Moulton 18:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid to say that KC, like her tragically arrogant allied editors in IDCab, harbor profound and persistent misconceptions that border on pathologically delusional beliefs. I recommend a shock dose of epistemology. Moulton 10:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Musical Interludes


I see no reason to include KC's real name on Encyc. Moulton, please stop using her real name. Auggie 11:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Are you good to go with Evil Death Eater Bitch? Moulton 13:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
It's really none of my business what happened over on Wikipedia. On Encyc, I've got a user calling another user an "Evil Death Eater Bitch" and posting her real name. This is speaking as a site administrator here.
As your friend, I'd say you were treated rudely by someone who clearly relishes the tin badge role she's decided to play. This was three years ago. Your best revenge is to move on and live a good life, while she sits in front of her computer playing Wikipedia. Auggie 13:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not three years ago. It's three days ago. Can you find the BLP violation there? If not I will highlight it for you. Moulton 15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
All the same, why do you want to participate on Wikipedia so badly? Auggie 15:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't. I want the egregious and rampant BLP violations corrected. Moulton 16:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I skimmed that page and can't see the BLP violation you're talking about, but I'm awful at finding violations to begin with. Auggie 16:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Vexagonistic Lunatic Scapegoat Psychodrama

  • "I propose that kids who want to wear tin badges and play with blocks and toy banhammers be confined to a school lunchroom in Canada. Detective and Sheriff are fine role models for children, but their zealous work ethic may be a tad unrealistic.

The rude antagonist classifies your English Wikipedia as lacking keenly estimable relevance. Moulton 12:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on dude. Respect mah authoritah. Auggie 14:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Holy old guy reference, Batman! Auggie 15:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Calculus of Ideas

Before one can craft a plan, one has to have a diagnosis.

Here is how I model the process of solving a systemic problem:

The Calculus of Ideas

Model-Based Reasoning

This brief article identifies the key steps in devising a plan to reach a goal.

The process of defining, organizing, and executing projects embodies a variety of important skills. At the intellectual heart of the matter is a kind of thinking that I like to call The Calculus of Ideas.

The Calculus of Ideas subsumes a discipline that ought to be a central thread in any college curriculum.

The first stage of the Calculus of Ideas is to identify Values. One can spend a semester constructing a Value System, which is really a topic in Philosophy.

Given a System of Values, the second stage is to derive Goals.

A Goal is a Future State of Affairs which is Feasible, Desirable, and Reachable.

Feasible means that the Goal State is not a physical impossibility. It doesn't violate the Laws of Physics, or any other inviolable constraints.

Desirable means that within the Value System, the Goal State is preferable to the current state of affairs.

Reachable means that the Goal State can be attained with available resources of time, energy, and materiel.

Given a Goal, the third stage is to develop a Plan for reaching the Goal State from the Present State of Affairs.

A Plan is a Course of Action. Planning begins with Ideas. An Idea is a Possibility for Changing the State of Affairs.

Most of the work in Planning is in discovering and evaluating Ideas, to find those that provide the best Strategy.

One can evaluate Candidate Ideas many ways, but in the Calculus of Ideas, we tend to focus on Model-Based Reasoning. In Model-Based Reasoning, we consider the likely consequences of each candidate idea. Oftentimes, this work requires technical analysis, simulation, or experimentation.

Once a Strategy is selected and reduced to a Plan, the actual work can be broken down into Tasks.

A Task is a discrete unit of work that can be assigned to an individual or team. The various Tasks often comprise a lot of grunt work. The motivation to do all this grunt work comes from the compensation or expected payoff for completing the Plan and reaching the Goal.

To carry off an entire project, you need Sponsors who are Values Oriented, Directors who are Goal Oriented, Creative Problem Solvers who are Idea Oriented, Decision Makers who are Plan Oriented, and Workers who are Task Oriented.

(Bureaucrats, who are Rule-Oriented should be dispensed with, and replaced by computers.)

Moulton 17:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting essay. What's unusual about Wikipedia is that the hierarchy seems to be collapsed on itself at first glance, and then it's only later you find out who the real decision makers are. It's not a flat organization by any means. Auggie 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
When I want a good book about evil people I go to Jim Thompson. Some of his characters would make excellent wiki administrators. Auggie 19:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Peck wrote that book thirty years ago, when treating people with personality disorders was nigh impossible. I don't know what the best treatment practices are today, but I understand that the fraction of the population with personality disorders has been rising steadily. Wikis are a magnet for Cluster B Phreaks, which is why it's a horribly toxic culture. Moulton 19:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


They're spamming. 1234 13:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify Encyc policy

Moulton says above, "Links to Wikipedia Review, Hivemind, WMF sites, or Facebook seem reasonably normative for a Wiki that is a derivative of Wikipedia and the associated Wikisphere." Presumably this means that there is no restriction on Encyc in revealing people's real names via links to these sites. Yet Encyc:Biography policy says "Posting real names, telephone numbers, or addresses of individuals is grounds for blocking under the "threatening/harassment" option." Has Moulton unilaterally overruled this policy, or is it still valid?--Checker 11:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not much worried about some vague "Gotcha" kind of thing. If this is about that one case in particular, it's a simple instance of there being exceptions to every rule. Alison is easily our most experienced administrator, and she's shown here and over at the WMF that she's capable of dealing with these complex cases in a sensitive and responsible way. Auggie 11:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Auggie. Alison is gifted in applying Carol Gilligan's Ethics of Care, which supersede mindless bureaucratic rules. All the bureaucratic rules do is create divisive idiotic drama. Moulton 11:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not about any case in particular, but the general Encyc:Biography policy, a policy written by Auggie. Alison herself said "Well, I think the site does need a policy, other than, maybe "let's let Alison deal with it all, since she's so good at mopping up shit", no? It's more than a little unfair." I note the confirmation that we have abandoned the policy and reverted to the situation that Alison herself calls "more than a little unfair." As Encyc is allowing things that would not be allowed on Wikipedia, can you still claim that "Encyc is a kinder, gentler wiki encyclopedia"? Kinder than Wikipedia? Evidently not.--Checker 07:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
If all this is about is a little inconsistency in the way policies are written then I'm not too worried. Like I said, Alison has been doing this for years and she very seldom needs help from higher management. If she thinks something is unfair, believe me, she can speak for herself.
The system has worked. In comparison to Wikipedia, we have very few problems with our BLPs. Auggie 15:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's your site and of coure you can set any policies you like and ignore any violations of policy you choose, even if as a result you have a system that Alison, who is according to Moulton your expert on ethics, condemns as "more than a little unfair." However, it is clearly inconsistent to permit things that would never be allowed on Wikipedia and then proclaim on your main page that Encyc is a kinder, gentler wiki encyclopedia. It clearly isn't kinder than Wikipedia. Evidently, your idea of ethics was formulated by an ED admin.--Checker 05:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


A word on Grawp: He always uses in his edit summaries. (WARNING: any and all domains of host Last Measure which contains shock images and malware. Any pages on the domains. The same applies to Where X can be any no. Of domains.) Maybe Grawp is infecting computers with nimp to vandalise encyc. It seems like The Storm Worm malware of 2008. Don't go to any sub domains of this website or you get so many pop ups of pr0n and expose your account to abuse. So use oversight when dealing with Grawp. Oversighting the edit summary is enough to protect against Grawp malware. Not only is Grawp a nuisance, he spreads malware where ever he goes. So oversight all edit summaries of Grawp.