Tuesday, November 21, 2006


I nominate august to take over administrative responsibilities. august, there’s actually nothing to do, but I think you’re the best person for the job nonetheless.

Other nominations? If not, "YEA" or "NAY".

Of course, I’ll still finish tweaking the blog and be available to handle technical difficulties. I think the reasons why we need someone besides me running things are obvious enough that we needn't have a debate.


TenaciousK said...

Sheesh, ender!

I nominate, uhm, Ender!

August would be dandy, I'm sure, but this is your baby. What seems to be the problem? Really?

Anonymous said...

Question: will administrative (editorial) control be ceded in full, or with certain restrictions attached?

For example, a new administrator's first act could be to reinstate Topazz immediately and without prejudice....

Dawn Coyote said...

. . . bite me.

Anonymous said...

In case all of you didn't get the memo,


Too effing much. The hypocrisy is stunning.

august said...

I don't have time to sort any of this out right now (my opinion on any of this.. to say nothing of taking part in the actual blog). My disseratation is due and my wife is annoyed that I'm not moving more quickly on it. Wikifray is something I enjoy, but on my list of priorities it is far, far below career and family. I hope it is for y'all as well.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

sikwoiu said...

TK: I do wish you would stop referring to WikiFray as mine. It’s not.

Anon: Of course a new administrator will have full editorial prerogative to be exercised in whatever fashion he or she sees fit.

Anyway, as Anon and ZB amply demonstrate, this blog can be about Ender or it can be about your posts. I’m sorry topazz plagiarized. I’m sorry topazz feels justified/unbothered in allowing the Anon’s and the ZB’s to attack WikiFray in her name. Despite everything, I thought that she at least cared a little. Guess not.

rundeep: I have to say, for you to agree with most of what ZB said really does surprise me. I’ve largely ignored him because his motives are, and have been, clearly suspect, and his arguments fall well short. But I will talk to you rundeep. So instead of just agreeing in general with ZB, perhaps you can pick a few of his points and actually argue them. Perhaps the dKos comparison?

That said, despite the vast efforts of a few to turn this discussion toward the absurd, I’m unwilling to view plagiarism as anything but a high crime. If you plagiarize, you should be sanctioned. Although my confessed plagiarism wasn’t on WikiFray, it does speak to my character. And as I pointed out in topazz’s case, once the sharks smell blood, and in this case mine (thank you ZB and Anon), the only option they leave you is to take the most draconian of measures.

The proof is in the comments. As the reaction to my confession demonstrates, the removal of topazz as a contributor and of her posts is the only way to silence those who would make sport of undermining this community. Thus, just as I did topazz, I’m banning myself from contributing to WikiFray. That doesn’t mean I won’t comment from time to time (seeing as we’re not dKos). But I will no longer make top posts.

JohnMcG said...

And as I pointed out in topazz’s case, once the sharks smell blood, and in this case mine (thank you ZB and Anon), the only option they leave you is to take the most draconian of measures.

It seems to be that that's putting an awful lot of power in the hands of people like ZB and Anon.

ZB and Anon can make themselves a nuisance, but I don't think they can convince others. Particularly, their grasps for moral equivalence on things that are not equivalent do not outweigh our posting history. Do you really think a point of ours will be seriously undermined by someone like ZB shouting that WF is nothing but a bunch of plagiarists, and hanging that claim on a satirical Fray post from 2004?

If you truly think your presence here undermines or will undermine our content, go ahead and leave. I don't, but my opinion is irrelevant. Just don't do it becaue your afraid what ZB will say.

It may be incorrect to call this "your baby," but it sure as hell isn't ZB's baby.

sikwoiu said...


Don’t misinterpret the gesture. I expect ZB and Anon and whoever to claim my removal as a victory (even though that runs contrary to their positions on topazz), and I expect you and the rational set to recognize that in their zeal to get “me” they proved my original point about why topazz left WikiFray no choice but to exclude her. I expect you and the rational set to understand removing myself as a contributor is both necessary for consistency’s sake (because, unlike some, consistency matters to us), and that in the grand scheme of things it’s not earth shattering to demote my contributions to comments only, but is significant in that it ultimately empowers the remaining contributors to deal with plagiarism in short order.

ZB will make of this what he wants. There’s really nothing you can do to penetrate his fantasy world. But hopefully, this will put the matter to rest for everyone else. A very clear, cut and dry conclusion.

Maximo said...

tk's mostly right that the objections mostly surround a failure in crisis management. in that regard, i wouldn't absolve myself so easily. there were/are plenty of choices, plenty of alternatives, plenty yet to be done.

at the same time, i understand not seeing them. i've panicked once or twice or more in my lifetime, so i know.

some of the options sorta depended on your "philosophy" re: communication. e.g., an email to topz coulda done wonders. i mean, let's say a fray writer committed the same error. would you imagine jake weisberg or cliff sloan engaging in any public comment without first making an attempt to get to the bottom of things privately?

possible solutions sorta depended on a lot of other things too. e.g., tough because the fray and wikifray are so conceptually entangled. not a fatal flaw--but maybe learn something about the uses of clarity.

so on, so forth. lots of stuff... if you're not too proud--i.e., if you prize wisdom/integrity/intellect above all else. just gotta be willing to be honest, i.e., self-critical (not the same as self-loathing, which is unproductive).

i really wish geoffie hadn't flushed whatsitsname so quickly.

itty bitty: this is so jewy: "I’m sorry topazz plagiarized. I’m sorry topazz feels justified/unbothered in allowing the Anon’s and the ZB’s to attack WikiFray in her name. Despite everything, I thought that she at least cared a little. Guess not."

Maximo said...


sorta tells you something about morality and values too: only those morals/values that don't detract from survival will survive.

corollary: those morals/values that lead to death are only contemporaneously (impermanently) relevant.

neat, huh?

Anonymous said...


I am the second Anon.

I am not the first Anon.

I, the second Anon, didn't act as anyone's agent or on anyone's behalf. I am not in communication with anyone. No one knew that I intended to comment.

sikwoiu said...


Well, I’d hardly qualify this as a crisis, nor panicked. It appears you don’t appreciate the public square, which I find rather strange to be honest. As for my feelings toward topazz, she’s clearly reveling in all the attention (evidence her silence), and taking some pleasure in the idea that she’s taking some down with her.

Maximo said...

i'm not the one tossing about words like "high crime", "sharks", "blood", "draconian measures", etc. but whatever. what i might say in defense along those lines isn't ever going to reveal to you anything about you that might matter to me.

i've been tending to view, meta, this place as more randian than kossian. you know... somewhat radically reworked values, set in motion, urging on a utopia, etc.

set in early 21st century blogospheria, the plot traces whether the reworked values really are "consistent". but the neatest feature is seeing how the reworked values fare when confronted with a certain layer of "reality". i can't agree with zb's dkos analogy as i think i've said, but there could be a shared archetype if* we start to see cognitive dissonance take hold.

wonder if tk would care to comment on cogdiss: human universal.

*hehe. hello, _______.

sikwoiu said...


Well, I’d suggest this is an occasion for you to question your own assumptions. Suffice it to say, I find your perception a tad self-serving, and frankly, you’re not as smart as your comments suggest you imagine yourself to be. To put it bluntly, you’re failing to deliver.

To help you:

WikiFray is fun. But unlike a child, I don’t hinge my hopes on fun everlasting. Instead, I’m quite content to play hard with WikiFray without fear of breaking it. You see, part of the fun is the fact that you can play hard, so if you stop playing hard with a toy because you’ve grown too attached to it and don’t want to risk breaking it, well, it loses some of it’s appeal. Either WikiFray can take it, or it can’t. If it breaks, well, it was fun while it lasted, and its reason for existing was proved insufficient. On the other hand, if it flourishes, its reason for existing is affirmed, and that in itself is the best invitation.

WikiFray is a newborn. What’s more fun, doing as you’re told, or learning the hard way? I submit that in this medium, learning the hard way, testing the boundaries yourself, is not only more interesting, but is what makes growing up an adventure. Publicly putting your idealism to the test.

Finally, you would have dealt with it differently. That’s fine. You would have handled things quietly, and behind the scenes. Wisely, properly, or so I imagine you think of it. And consequently, WikiFray would have been spared all the noise and topazz would still be a contributor. Or to rewrite that last sentence, WikiFray would have been less interesting and the policy on plagiarism would have been set to: tolerate.

LentenStuffe said...


I don't equate you with the posters on your blog. In fact, I have a decent rapport with many of them and we mutually contribute to one another's blogs.

Since baggage is a word you've used, my baggage with you is that I have always perceived you as being hostile to my efforts on the Fray: you actively sought to blacklist me and then to enlist others against me. You are doing the very same thing here by soliciting rundeep to account for her temerity in agreeing with me.

To be brief, though, I don't trust you or your motives, and I don't believe you when you characterize Topazz's minor infraction as a high crime. It is not. Appolonius put it best when he said she was being burned at the stake for "plagiarizing what wasn't worth stealing." That's my view, meaning context is everything. Yet you have stoked this fire into a blazing inferno. Why not forgive, excuse and acknowledge what yourself and Topazz have in common, and then put it to the fine community you have created here?

I also don't trust the moral standard being promulgated here and on BOTF. In my experience, there are few of us who can claim (let alone occupy) the high moral ground, and our experience with DKos illustrated this. My basic philosophy is that people are the same everywhere, here, there, everywhere, and those who give themselves airs are the worst hypocrites, like you, Ender.

You are a manipulator at heart, and all this whining of yours is deplorable. If your community comes to despise me on your behalf, I really do not mind. I am my own man. And I assure you I'm not like you. I do not plagiarize. I'm trying to create something beautiful and worthy in my life. My blog attests to this, and when I see something that merits advocacy I will promote that, and when I see agents provocateurs of dissonance and degeneration I will cry out against them. That's my story.

PS. JohnG is correct: you are placing a lot of power in my hands by foregrounding my quibbles in this way. Either I mean more to you than you let on, or your hatred is so deep that you cannot see straight. I will say this: If you had the power the kossites possess to troll rate my contributions to any site, then I believe I'd have been banned a long time ago.

You were successful in enlisting ThyGoddess to your side, and perhaps Dawn too, though she is more single-minded. You've definitely swayed JohnG who sees me as a vulture. This is a trend I'm certain you'd like to continue. If you're successful, that will not be my cue to leave -- just so you know.

bite said...


Stupid to remove yourself as a contributor.

Topazz posted material not her own on this site. You did not. There is a difference and this site will suffer from it.

You are being over dramatic (as was she, on BOTF--and believe me, as one who has behaved that way, I know what it looks like).

stop it.

Maximo said...

i'm not sure you got even one thing right there.

so i'll point you in another direction:

i'd have asked topz what she thought she was doing. i'm sure it seemed sorta unnecessary to you. but were i one who viewed wikifray as a collaboration, i'd have given her the opportunity (note i'm not using the word "option") to remove it herself--and to issue comment on wikifray. resignation/removal could go either way.

i'd also not have simply deleted it. were i one to consider wikifray integrity elegantly, i'd issue/post admission that a contributor had committed error, together with affirmative notice to author and affirmation of values for the benefit of the readership, and finally a unified statement of actions taken to remedy. (sorta what i meant by "p.r." earlier, and also why i agreed with tk re: bv, as well as the biting the bullet reference.) (along these lines, i believe i used the phrase "swept under the rug" in that collaterally flushed post to whatsitsname to indicate why i found the notion of standards here somewhat laughable--or disingenuous--or neither of those, but descriptively put, rationalized--and thereby sorta inauthentic.)

needless to say, i'd separately treat the events of the fray from the events here. (sorta what i was pushing towards when i said "it's less weird [yadda yadda yadda]" and the bit on conceptual entanglement.)

overall, i rate the actions of most in this incident as "thoughtless" and "reactionary." it's ok if no one cares what i think. i'm sorta used to hearing that when it comes to the fray and its derivatives.

i do have an ulterior motive here, but it's not self-serving. and strangely, it's not malicious either.

Anonymous said...


I am the first Anon.

I am not the second Anon.

I, the first Anon, didn't willingly act as anyone's agent or on anyone's behalf. I am not in communication with anyone besides the second Anon and, on occasion, my spouse. No one but them knew that I intended to comment here or on DailyKos.

sikwoiu said...


You’d have asked her what she thought she was doing? She knew what she was doing, and no answer she could give would change what needed to be done. Basically, you’re saying you would screw with her. She had the opportunity to remove it herself. Remember, she knew it was plagiarism before anyone. The fact that she didn’t immediately delete it is all the more reason to delete it for her.

As for your course of action, I like it. Only problem is, I’m not getting paid and it sounds too much like work. As I alluded to in my troubleshooting post, I’m really not interested in shepherding people. They’re all mature adults experienced in the fray. I shouldn’t have to hold anyone’s hand or spend an inordinate amount of time playing polite, professional interlocutor. I should be able to fix screw-ups as quickly and efficiently as possible. I’ve got things I “want to do” to do.

It’s also laughable that you imagine any course of action I might take, wouldn’t be taken full advantage of by ZB and the other nattering coattail surfers.

Now if I understand you right, you think because I simply deleted the post, the precedent of not tolerating plagiarism it set is inauthentic? To mean, future plagiarists won’t be held to the same standard. But then, the discussion regarding the action is not swept under the rug, so you’re being a bit of an idiot. But it sounds to me like you’re wedded to the idea, so whatever. Tell you what though, become a contributor and post something plagiarized. You can get deleted like topazz, and then decide whether it still feels “inauthentic”. Anyway, you’re just so full of crap. Where you and I differ, on the most fundamental level, is I think WikiFray can be relevant, and you refuse to imagine even “relevance” is relevant. Admit it, you’re burdened with a conceit that demands all things wrt the fray must be depersonalized and diminished.

Lastly, what you label thoughtless and reactionary I label black and white. So I can’t say I have any sympathy for your sense of superiority when to achieve it, you occupy a position that is anything but unequivocally reproving of a plagiarist.

Maximo said...

not so. i thought it fairly clear from her (confused) actions/words that she wanted (but didn't know how) to correct her error.

moreover, given that hurt from insult (unless you were lying/rationalizing about that) is only subjectively known unless voiced, yes, i'd have let her know that/how she had hurt me. (i don't presume to know precisely what she'd have to do to earn my forgiveness, but the assumption i'm starting with, actually where you say you started, is: wikifray as collaboration/shining city/community better than the fray. [the point being simply that a returning to the fold is more consistent with these broad notions than excommunication.])

the rest of your 12:19 reply is replete with excuses that you shouldn't find convincing. but bullet points:
1. it's not that much work to policy up--especially if standards matter.
2. what risk does zb pose? and i thought that was part of the fun?
3. the continued existence of this discussion is accidental to not being swept under the rug by you.
4. which is to say when you call for standards, it's a bit... much.
5. amend: you're treating wikifray as not yet relevant. i'm treating wikifray as already relevant.
6. i hope you're kidding about that last line--it's really asinine--and i don't mean as it relates to me.

so on, so forth.

well, turkey day calls. enjoy your weekend, si.

sikwoiu said...


Well, you’ve always been more forgiving of idiocy than I. So, perhaps that’s the difference. You’re inclined to coddle idiots because without them you feel you’d be straying from the “notions”, whereas I’m perfectly content to treat people here the same way I treat them on the fray (i.e. WikiFray is the fray).

1. it's not that much work to policy up--especially if standards matter.

Well, actually, it is that much work. And if you haven’t noticed, we are setting standards as situations merit. It’s all very fluid. But if it’s not so much work, why not take the little time it would take over your holiday weekend and create a policy. And I’m not talking about a policy of plagiarism; I’m talking about a policy that covers every possible or perceived issue that might confront us in the future (who the hell imagined topazz would plagiarize). I give you till Monday. Moron.

2. what risk does zb pose? and i thought that was part of the fun?

Um, ZB is an entertainment. I thought that was clear. Seems to me you’re the one uncomfortable with the way things went down. Are you saying your “procedures” reap no benefits? What then would be the point.

3. the continued existence of this discussion is accidental to not being swept under the rug by you.

Yes, see, I don’t understand this. I deleted the plagiarist’s posts. When asked what happened to them, I explained what had happened to them. I haven’t deleted a subsequent post or comment (and yes ZB, I do have the ability to delete your comments), so the notion that I’m actively engaged in making this go away is the wishful thinking of someone apparently very desperate to feel superior.

4. which is to say when you call for standards, it's a bit... much.

Again, how do you mean. You really do need to explain why the standard of deleting plagiarized posts and citing their deletion is someone different than not deleting them and citing their plagiarism. Don’t get me wrong, both are fine in my book, and one might even be superior to the other, but how an above board deletion of the post equates to an assault on standards is very much a mystery that you have yet to explain. Really, at this point it only exists in your mind.

5. amend: you're treating wikifray as not yet relevant. i'm treating wikifray as already relevant.

Well, that’s where you’re an idiot. Fact of the matter is, I was the first to treat Wag and WF as if they mattered. In fact, last I checked, you begged off joining because you didn’t want to be seen my the sitemeter. Yet here you are. You really are living in a dream world aren’t you?

6. i hope you're kidding about that last line--it's really asinine--and i don't mean as it relates to me.

Well, I wasn’t kidding.

I’ll tell you what I see. I see a dude who is spending an inordinate amount of time thinking about how this site should be run. He’s not volunteering, he’s not contributing, he’s just sitting on the sidelines thinking, thinking, thinking about it. Allow me to butcher a saying: Those that can, do, those that can’t, pretend to instruct, i.e. you’re not an actor, for whatever reason (I’m sure you have some really rational sounding ones), so your opinions really do amount to that much hot air, especially compared to my actions. There’s nothing stopping your from putting them to the test. But something tells me you’ll never quite get around to it.

LentenStuffe said...


Why are you still addressing and referencing me? I'm so done with your trifles.

You were never eligible to sit in judgment of your betters. You're still not, so why persist with this? You're beginning to foam at the mouth ...

For anyone else who might be interested in my context. Ender inflicted a wound shortly after I arrived on BOTF that was unique for its malicousness. His cut was more deeply personal than the usual back-and-forth because he endeavored to kill my credibility as a poster. Schad for example called me a "Slime ball" for doing something I afterwards regretted doing, but I never once misconstrued Schad's admonishment. He called it like he saw it, which is also how it was. It was without malice and was not ballasted by ulterior motives. biteoftheweek is like that: she'll call you out because she thinks you've fucked up. Many times she's right.

What Ender does is very different. He searches out vulnerabilities, weaknesses, shameful flaws and he blasts them for the benefit of an appreciative audience he usually convenes beforehand. He thinks ahead, plans ahead and executes the most lethal attack. He acts with malicious intent, and he makes his attack personal. Ender wants you to die roaring. Everything he does is geared to illicit the maximum amount of hurt and pain. He enjoys your pain.

His treatment of Topazz was exactly that. The expulsion of Topazz from this site began a long time ago. Really, the plagiarism has nothing to do with it. Ender had been waiting for his moment for months, maybe even years, because that's how Ender is. Topazz's most vulnerable moment was also Ender's most opportune one, and he struck her down because he sought that thrill.

Ender galvanized the Esprit Du Mal against Topazz; he set the ball rolling on BOTF, and he's the one keeping this going. Has everyone lost sight of the fact that his own culpability disqualifies him from passing judgment on the same issue? Yet, here he is lording it over maximo and rundeep and myself and name-calling because he too is busted.

I get that you don't like me, Ender, which I now understand as envy or jealousy. You would be a creative, original thinker like me if you could, but instead you are bound by your limitations. Not only that but you are tormented by the knowledge and awareness that you are not creative. This is sad, and I feel for you, but I cannot help you, nobody can. You must beat people down because you are beaten down. The clearest mark of your inability to create was your inability to invent a creative name for your blog. You even invited others to contribute and still you failed.

But enough of this. I'm done here. If Dawn asks me to contribute in your absence I just might do that, but I'd never belong so long as you are here. You are far too vulgar for my liking.

Maximo said...

i'm not all that interested in your strawmen/non sequiturs. so rather than trade in nonsense, i'll cut to the punchline:

if you weren't such a fraud, you'd be as disgusted as i am with your airs--what you allow others to think of you.

so, you know, carry on, etc.