WMF's Beaudette: Downplay but Use Work of Banned User

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Wed May 13, 2015 4:33 pm

The WMF Director of Community Philippe Beaudette says with a smile that Wikimedia Commons should go ahead and quietly use the image contributions of once-prolific but now "sanfranbanned" editor Russavia. Sneaky!

Russavia is not welcome to upload to our sites, so there should be no reason for new copyright assignments, correct? I think there's no harm in accepting them, but I don't want to legitimize his participation. Downplay. Philippe (WMF) 21:33, 30 January 2015.

Beaudette said that on "OTRS wiki" which is evidently non-public and thus can't be linked, but someone uploaded a screenshot of the comment: https://archive.is/iegev.

Russavia was banned by the WMF's San Francisco headquarters early this year under unexplained circumstances. However it should be noted that, as opposed to several other bannees, there is no indication of any child-protection concerns.

Is it a controversial thing that the WMF wants to go ahead and use the work of those it bans? I don't know, but it seems ungrateful and wrong to me!

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Wed May 13, 2015 4:35 pm

No. The answer is no.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Wed May 13, 2015 6:31 pm

No problem.
The WMF-banned people worked for years to be banned by the WMF, who should have banned some of them at least a year earlier.
The WMF has no need to waste money on deleting contributions by them, past or future. If the banned persons who represent a threat to children were to crawl out from under their rocks, again, then the WMF should go after them. ~~~~

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed May 13, 2015 11:24 pm

Although I might add, there are examples of administrators blocking someone who was making non-controversial edits of passable quality, then reverting each and every edit the account made, with no discussion and no explanation. The usual recent example given is an IP address that Bbb23 forced out and reverted last month. Completely pointless, completely mad. I could find more examples of this if you demand it, although they are usually well-hidden.

When pigs fly · Unread post by **When pigs fly** » Thu May 14, 2015 3:47 am

Spiking the football

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Thu May 14, 2015 5:56 am

POV warriors like Will Beback or Mantanmoreland would also wait for an editor to be banned, then go through and revert every single one of their edits, no matter how uncontroversial. People associated with WP manipulate or interpret the rules according to the dictates of their respective agendas.

I think they would sometimes justify it by citing the Amorrow precedent, in that banned editors needed to be completely ostracized because some of them were so dangerous in real life that they needed to be kept completely at arm's length from WP. However, a lot of the editors they did this to gave no indication of being dangerous in real life.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Thu May 14, 2015 8:29 pm

Cla68 wrote:POV warriors like Will Beback or Mantanmoreland would also wait for an editor to be banned, then go through and revert every single one of their edits, no matter how uncontroversial. People associated with WP manipulate or interpret the rules according to the dictates of their respective agendas.

I think they would sometimes justify it by citing the Amorrow precedent, in that banned editors needed to be completely ostracized because some of them were so dangerous in real life that they needed to be kept completely at arm's length from WP. However, a lot of the editors they did this to gave no indication of being dangerous in real life.

The Wikimedia administrator "Scott" formerly known as "Scott Martin" formerly known as "Hex" also has been seen to do that. He did it to the guy that did the hoax on some university secret society, discussed at length here at Wikipediocracy somewhere. Did the hoax mean that every single edit the guy ever did should be undone? I dunno, and neither did Scott.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Thu May 14, 2015 8:55 pm

Triptych wrote:
Cla68 wrote:POV warriors like Will Beback or Mantanmoreland would also wait for an editor to be banned, then go through and revert every single one of their edits, no matter how uncontroversial. People associated with WP manipulate or interpret the rules according to the dictates of their respective agendas.

I think they would sometimes justify it by citing the Amorrow precedent, in that banned editors needed to be completely ostracized because some of them were so dangerous in real life that they needed to be kept completely at arm's length from WP. However, a lot of the editors they did this to gave no indication of being dangerous in real life.
The Wikimedia administrator "Scott" formerly known as "Scott Martin" formerly known as "Hex" also has been seen to do that. He did it to the guy that did the hoax on some university secret society, discussed at length here at Wikipediocracy somewhere. Did the hoax mean that every single edit the guy ever did should be undone? I dunno, and neither did Scott.

Hex (Scott) is a member here and has given up his tools.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Thu May 14, 2015 9:10 pm

Zoloft wrote: Hex (Scott) is a member here and has given up his tools.

He's hasn't "given them up" when he can drop back in at Wikipedia and get them back in a couple hours. To my belief, he'll do that. He prepares the conditions to do that, at Wikipedia and here, by emphasizing he left on his own terms and not under any cloud.

If he wanted to give up his tools permanently he'd leave a resignation message at Wikipedia that says something like "I don't intend to reclaim my tools without passing a fresh RFA (request for adminship) process."

PS: I only referred to him in terms of his iteratively-renamed Wikipedia account and didn't link him to Hex here.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu May 14, 2015 9:20 pm

Triptych wrote:
Zoloft wrote: Hex (Scott) is a member here and has given up his tools.
He's hasn't "given them up" when he can drop back in at Wikipedia and get them back in a couple hours. To my belief, he'll do that. He prepares the conditions to do that, at Wikipedia and here, by emphasizing he left on his own terms and not under any cloud.

If he wanted to give up his tools permanently he'd leave a resignation message at Wikipedia that says something like "I don't intend to reclaim my tools without passing a fresh RFA (request for adminship) process."

PS: I only referred to him in terms of his iteratively-renamed Wikipedia account and didn't link him to Hex here.

You know you're being tiresome, right?

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Thu May 14, 2015 9:26 pm

Vigilant wrote: You know you're being tiresome, right?

No, but your avatar did a couple weeks after Nimoy died.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu May 14, 2015 9:30 pm

Triptych wrote:
Vigilant wrote: You know you're being tiresome, right?
No, but your avatar did a couple weeks after Nimoy died.

QED

Ross McPherson · Unread post by **Ross McPherson** » Fri May 15, 2015 6:10 am

Triptych wrote:Is it a controversial thing that the WMF wants to go ahead and use the work of those it bans? I don't know, but it seems ungrateful and wrong to me!

Does the vampire care whose blood it is?

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Fri May 15, 2015 6:11 am

Colton Cosmic wrote:PS: I only referred to him in terms of his iteratively-renamed Wikipedia account and didn't link him to Hex here.

Whatever shit-for-brains here is trying to imply by this stuff about various user names I've had over the years, all of which bear prominent mentions of my real name alongside them, it isn't working.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Fri May 15, 2015 5:08 pm

Hex wrote:
Colton Cosmic wrote:PS: I only referred to him in terms of his iteratively-renamed Wikipedia account and didn't link him to Hex here.
Whatever shit-for-brains here is trying to imply by this stuff about various user names I've had over the years, all of which bear prominent mentions of my real name alongside them, it isn't working.

Especially since its under your avatar...

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Fri May 15, 2015 7:52 pm

Neotarf · Unread post by **Neotarf** » Fri May 15, 2015 9:27 pm

Sure, why not.

You meet someone, it's love at first sight, it's gonna be forever, you exchange rings.

Things go bad, it wasn't what you thought, someone changes the locks. Do you keep the ring? Yeah, why not. It can't really be recycled.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Sat May 16, 2015 1:58 pm

I dunno what The Scarlet Cockatoo is annoyed about. Maybe his birdseed went stale. I just made an observation that he renames his account periodically. It wasn't necessarily a pointed observation.

If I wanted to be critical of it, I guess I could mention that he purloined username "Scott" from the guy that first had it. That Scott hadn't logged in in two years or something, but it didn't mean he wasn't coming back ever. It was an example of administrative privilege: "I rather fancy that username, why don't we take it from him and give it to me?" "Why, sure, I'll just use my bureaucrat rights to boot him out and hand it over to you, we're all one happy family of administrators, never mind the little people."

Then a month or so later, the original Scott probably comes back from his tour of overseas duty or whatever, ready to start doing great contributions, and is like "what happened?"

The reason I said I wasn't connecting Scott to a member here is because my stance is commentary about the Wikipedia power structure. I wasn't meaning to engage in any quarreling with a fellow member here.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Sat May 16, 2015 2:51 pm

Stealing 'scarlet cockatoo' for my band name.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sat May 16, 2015 6:55 pm

Bless.

Yes, I'm sure that "Scott" would be pretty pissed off if he returned from his brief 13-year vacation from his 3-day editing career to discover that I had heartlessly stolen his treasured user name.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat May 16, 2015 7:07 pm

You wut, m8?

Writ Keeper · Unread post by **Writ Keeper** » Sat May 16, 2015 7:10 pm

Yup, I was about to say that I i think you're misremembering, Triptych. The "Scott" account (now Scott (usurped)~enwiki (T-C-L)) had only 21 edits when we usurped it for Hex (then Scott Martin), and all were in 2001, so I doubt your scenario is particularly plausible. (For the record, it had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was an admin at the time.)

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat May 16, 2015 8:11 pm

Writ Keeper wrote:Yup, I was about to say that I i think you're misremembering, Triptych. The "Scott" account (now Scott (usurped)~enwiki (T-C-L)) had only 21 edits when we usurped it for Hex (then Scott Martin), and all were in 2001, so I doubt your scenario is particularly plausible. (For the record, it had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was an admin at the time.)

If I wanted to usurp Zoloft (T-C-L)at en.wiki I'm sure I could. Matter of fact, where would I request that? I should grab that to prevent impersonation.

Writ Keeper · Unread post by **Writ Keeper** » Sat May 16, 2015 8:24 pm

Generally speaking, I'm actually not sure anymore; it's no longer possible to rename a user locally (part of the fabled SUL finalization), so the process will have changed, and to be honest, I never bothered to keep up with the changes. S'why I'm not a bureaucrat anymore. It's somewhere on Meta, I'd think.

But specifically for your case, I don't think Zoloft has been taken on enwiki at all, so you should be able to register it without any hassle. The only Zoloft that is taken is on rowiki (Romanian?), and they don't appear to have made a global account. They only have 2 edits, dating back to 2006, so shouldn't be a big deal regardless, though.

EDIT: Oops, that doesn't work. Yeah, I'd guess you'd have to go to Meta and ask for a usurp for that username; I think the page is this one. Not sure what the criteria are, though.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Sat May 16, 2015 10:06 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Triptych wrote:
Vigilant wrote: You know you're being tiresome, right?
No, but your avatar did a couple weeks after Nimoy died.
QED

That's Spock from the evil alternative-universe Enterprise.
Mirror, Mirror (Star Trek: The Original Series) (T-H-L)
Show respect lest you get a taste of the agonizer or agony booth.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Sat May 16, 2015 11:54 pm

Zoloft wrote:
Writ Keeper wrote:Yup, I was about to say that I i think you're misremembering, Triptych. The "Scott" account (now Scott (usurped)~enwiki (T-C-L)) had only 21 edits when we usurped it for Hex (then Scott Martin), and all were in 2001, so I doubt your scenario is particularly plausible. (For the record, it had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was an admin at the time.)
If I wanted to usurp Zoloft (T-C-L)at en.wiki I'm sure I could. Matter of fact, where would I request that? I should grab that to prevent impersonation.

Be careful. They could then block you under the username policy saying you are an advocate for the medicine "Zoloft." I know it sounds silly, but rules-lawyering or wiki-lawyering has always been a means for some hard-core Wikipedians to silence critics.

I often worry about Joy (T-C-L) getting accused of being me and obliterated by a trigger-happy rocket jog with a twenty-meg party crasher out to make the fat lady sing at the ball game.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun May 17, 2015 6:51 am

The Joy wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
Writ Keeper wrote:Yup, I was about to say that I i think you're misremembering, Triptych. The "Scott" account (now Scott (usurped)~enwiki (T-C-L)) had only 21 edits when we usurped it for Hex (then Scott Martin), and all were in 2001, so I doubt your scenario is particularly plausible. (For the record, it had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was an admin at the time.)
If I wanted to usurp Zoloft (T-C-L)at en.wiki I'm sure I could. Matter of fact, where would I request that? I should grab that to prevent impersonation.
Be careful. They could then block you under the username policy saying you are an advocate for the medicine "Zoloft." I know it sounds silly, but rules-lawyering or wiki-lawyering has always been a means for some hard-core Wikipedians to silence critics.

I often worry about Joy (T-C-L) getting accused of being me and obliterated by a trigger-happy rocket jog with a twenty-meg party crasher out to make the fat lady sing at the ball game.

In a world where a prominent encyclopedia editor can be named ''BongWarrior' I believe I can safely claim 'Zoloft' as an alt. *drums fingers* I shall decide whether to ask before Monday.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Sun May 17, 2015 2:06 pm

Zoloft wrote: In a world where a prominent encyclopedia editor can be named ''BongWarrior' I believe I can safely claim 'Zoloft' as an alt. *drums fingers* I shall decide whether to ask before Monday.

It's a brand name for the psycho-active drug Sertraline, if I understand correctly. So you may run afoul of the "no promotional names" section of the username policy, here:

The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional:

Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. TownvilleWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt). However usernames that contain such names are sometimes permissible; see under Usernames implying shared use below.

There are a lot of patroller types that sit at the "generate list of new users page" wherever that is, and they like to pummel newbies that get it wrong.

You might make it through though, who knows.

"Zoloft" to me sounds like a Russian family name. You could claim it was your maternal grandpa Boris' name when he came over from the mother country.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Sun May 17, 2015 2:13 pm

Writ Keeper wrote:Yup, I was about to say that I i think you're misremembering, Triptych. The "Scott" account (now Scott (usurped)~enwiki (T-C-L)) had only 21 edits when we usurped it for Hex (then Scott Martin), and all were in 2001, so I doubt your scenario is particularly plausible. (For the record, it had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was an admin at the time.)

It is correct that I thought the amount of time the account went inactive was around two years, as I said. I didn't think it was over a decade.

Is that really the question though? (Original) Scott was in good standing and Wikipedia doesn't suspend accounts for inactivity. Let (current) Scott be "Scott3" or "The Real Scott" or "Scott to Trot" or something like that. (Original) Scott might've stumbled across his old password cheat sheet and returned.

Writ Keeper · Unread post by **Writ Keeper** » Sun May 17, 2015 4:15 pm

Triptych wrote:Is that really the question though? (Original) Scott was in good standing and Wikipedia doesn't suspend accounts for inactivity. Let (current) Scott be "Scott3" or "The Real Scott" or "Scott to Trot" or something like that. (Original) Scott might've stumbled across his old password cheat sheet and returned.

Sure, it's a point of view. Another is that we shouldn't let accounts that are well over a decade old with only a handful of edits prevent us from obliging people who'd like their desired username. I don't think either view is particularly wrong; both certainly have their adherents, at Wikipedia and elsewhere. My real point is that I don't think Scott's usurpations are a particularly good example of administrative abuse at Wikipedia, and certainly not an example of administrative cronyism.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Sun May 17, 2015 7:58 pm

When I took my referee's license in soccer/football, the instructor told us that soccer referees are not like referees in American sports, holding their whistles in their mouths and trying to call a foul at every chance.

Perhaps Triptych might try a soccer referee's perspective, at least with Hex/Scott.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue May 19, 2015 3:14 am

Zoloft wrote:
Writ Keeper wrote:Yup, I was about to say that I i think you're misremembering, Triptych. The "Scott" account (now Scott (usurped)~enwiki (T-C-L)) had only 21 edits when we usurped it for Hex (then Scott Martin), and all were in 2001, so I doubt your scenario is particularly plausible. (For the record, it had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was an admin at the time.)
If I wanted to usurp Zoloft (T-C-L)at en.wiki I'm sure I could. Matter of fact, where would I request that? I should grab that to prevent impersonation.

Somebody has Randy from Boise (T-C-L) on WP (established before I grabbed the name here) and actually used it to impersonate me. So I say: grab the name if you can and salt it.

DaReal RfB

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Tue May 19, 2015 6:29 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
Writ Keeper wrote:Yup, I was about to say that I i think you're misremembering, Triptych. The "Scott" account (now Scott (usurped)~enwiki (T-C-L)) had only 21 edits when we usurped it for Hex (then Scott Martin), and all were in 2001, so I doubt your scenario is particularly plausible. (For the record, it had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was an admin at the time.)
If I wanted to usurp Zoloft (T-C-L)at en.wiki I'm sure I could. Matter of fact, where would I request that? I should grab that to prevent impersonation.
Somebody has Randy from Boise (T-C-L) on WP (established before I grabbed the name here) and actually used it to impersonate me. So I say: grab the name if you can and salt it.

DaReal RfB

Tim's lack of OCD irritates my OCD: Let me quote an uncharacteristic exchange between Tim/Carrite (T-C-L)/Randy from Boise [Wikipediocracy] and Drmies, which ends with kibbitzing from the original Randy from Boise (T-C-L) [Wikipedia]

Will the real Randy from Boise please stand up, please stand up wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... it_summary
Black edit summary

Your "bwaa ha ha" edit summary was entirely inappropriate. You are a middle-aged man, not a 12 year old boy; edit summaries are not for taking potshots at others for their off-wiki comments (which is what I assume this was about). It's a BLP of a public figure — and a prominent WP critic, which you might have noted if you didn't delete the article link — and when you're writing shit like "I'm going to delete this article one comma at a time" and get the subject worked up about the motivations of the anonymous admin with a machete, that's well over the line. It's a sensitive bio, that stuff shouldn't be happening. If you've got something to say to me about my off wiki comments, welcome to my user talk, or send me an email (my email addie is posted on my user page), or sign in and go after me off wiki. Any of those things are fine. No links here to keep the drama down, if you think I'm being too oblique I will happily provide a diff. best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (T-C-L) 22:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I know exactly what you're talking about, and you don't have to provide them with a diff, since I'm sure it's already been mulled over. It's a "sensitive" bio only because a couple of agitators made it one, and I don't give a flying fuck for what they think. You should know, as someone who used to be a good editor, that the criticism on "that" website of my editing the article is a bunch of crap. "Oh he must hate the guy". "Oh why doesn't he work on another article". "Oh it must be because he has a personal ax(e) to grind". Yeah, I'm a paid IBM operative trying to whitewash the company record.
It seems that you're suggesting that the subject in question is in contact with you and some of those "others", and that's an interesting thought, one which we'll not pursue any further today. If those others could find it in their hearts and their gullets to attempt to edit constructively, or at least criticize constructively, without outing, insulting, and invading the privacy of editors they don't like, it would be a different matter. But I'll take the "middle-aged man" thing as a compliment, since I don't really can't put much stock in anything else you say. I like the gift as I like the giver, and I don't like the company you keep, or the fact that you seem to chime in with their choir. If the choir shuts up, then I have no quarrel. (There's a few there with half a conscience or more, and they know who they are, and I respect them and their opinion.)
Thank you,
Drmies (T-C-L) 23:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Tim, I don't go after anyone. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, and to repeat what I've said before off-wiki which you may have missed — YES, he is in contact with me, adhering to Jimmy Wales' Bright Line like a disciple. That's how Wales' goofy doofy concept is supposed to work. People, particularly controversial public figures, have not only a right to monitor their own WP biographies — they would be completely foolish not to. If something goes haywire: I hear about it. If there's a new book out: I hear about it. If anything was wrong while I was rewriting it, factually wrong, I was corrected on it. Nobody told me what to write, but trust me that what I did write was carefully vetted. I'm pleased that you don't "go after" anyone. That has not been fully obvious to me and I will Assume Good Faith.
Carrite 16:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I'm still a "good Wikipedian." Please never forget. Carrite 16:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You'll pardon me for being a little irked after reading all that crap about me, and those pretty desperate attempts to blacken my character. That's what bothers me about that company. I assume you have watched some of my edits, and you should know that, for instance, I rarely leave long, long lists of publications intact unless these are publications that have some proven notability, proven by reviews or so. I've edited articles on people that I actually know, and have pruned them the same way that I prune other articles: you are welcome to check my record, if you haven't already done so. Your subject is more than welcome to drop me a line; let there be no suggestion that they wouldn't know how to do that. And I don't know all the things you said off-wiki: I really have no interest in figuring out what other people say elsewhere. I am not a regular reader of Wikipediocracy or Wikipedia Review, and don't read it at all unless someone points me to something. Andreas has, for instance, and I'll follow those suggestions. Another kind and unfortunately banned soul [Shucks, , -KW] pointed out "my" thread to me, and I read it without pleasure. I know that Afadsbad comments on that website, but that has no bearing on for instance the recent ANI thread about them, even though I vaguely remember disagreeing vehemently with something they said (don't even remember what it was). As for "good", you'll recall that I supported your RfA, perhaps. Anyway, if it wasn't clear, I got nothing against your subject or what they wrote about, but that company over there doesn't care for what I say or do, only for what they think they can deduct.
Drmies 16:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well we'll just agree to differ then.
Randy from Boise (T-C-L) 05:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC) (link)

The last edit seems ironic and funny to me, but it should have had a wink or another indication that it was just having fun. P.S. Randy de Boise (T-C-L) and Randy du Boise (T-C-L) are open.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Tue May 26, 2015 3:23 pm

Triptych wrote:
Writ Keeper wrote:Yup, I was about to say that I i think you're misremembering, Triptych. The "Scott" account (now Scott (usurped)~enwiki (T-C-L)) had only 21 edits when we usurped it for Hex (then Scott Martin), and all were in 2001, so I doubt your scenario is particularly plausible. (For the record, it had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was an admin at the time.)
It is correct that I thought the amount of time the account went inactive was around two years, as I said. I didn't think it was over a decade.

Is that really the question though? (Original) Scott was in good standing and Wikipedia doesn't suspend accounts for inactivity. Let (current) Scott be "Scott3" or "The Real Scott" or "Scott to Trot" or something like that. (Original) Scott might've stumbled across his old password cheat sheet and returned.

Or you could just be full of shit... again...? Taking bets.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Tue May 26, 2015 3:27 pm

DanMurphy wrote:No. The answer is no.

No, to the alliterative one, the answer is "No. The answer is no. And fuck off. And stop it."
The order of the items is not fixed.

Contrived threads with silly titles targetting people you personally don't like are so boring now. Desist.

Philippe always speaks very highly of Colton to me in private. Colton, I think he likes you. I don't see your beef there.

Anyway(s), just passing through. Have a(n) nice day.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Fri Jun 19, 2015 8:27 pm

Jim wrote:
Triptych wrote:
Writ Keeper wrote:Yup, I was about to say that I i think you're misremembering, Triptych. The "Scott" account (now Scott (usurped)~enwiki (T-C-L)) had only 21 edits when we usurped it for Hex (then Scott Martin), and all were in 2001, so I doubt your scenario is particularly plausible. (For the record, it had nothing to do with the fact that Scott was an admin at the time.)
It is correct that I thought the amount of time the account went inactive was around two years, as I said. I didn't think it was over a decade.

Is that really the question though? (Original) Scott was in good standing and Wikipedia doesn't suspend accounts for inactivity. Let (current) Scott be "Scott3" or "The Real Scott" or "Scott to Trot" or something like that. (Original) Scott might've stumbled across his old password cheat sheet and returned.
Or you could just be full of shit... again...? Taking bets. No, to the alliterative one, the answer is "No. The answer is no. And fuck off. And stop it."

This once, I'm going to withhold counter-firing on this person, whom I'd rather not know of at all, but he shouldn't get used to it.

It would be interesting to know why he is privately communicating with Philippe Beaudette though. Is he just an editor that sees fit to do such, or is he a WMF employee that we didn't know about.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Fri Jun 19, 2015 8:47 pm

Triptych wrote:It would be interesting to know why he is privately communicating with Philippe Beaudette though. Is he just an editor that sees fit to do such, or is he a WMF employee that we didn't know about.

Well, it's probably just one of those things that people feel they have to do at least once during their lifetimes, so they can cross it off their "bucket list" and move on to the next thing. I myself was thinking about doing it at one point, but decided not to because I dislike buckets.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:41 am

Someone was talking to me the other day and spoke ill of Satan. I turned to him and said, "He always speaks highly of you, Chuck."

Note: I do not actually converse with Satan. I was using a figure of speech (T-H-L).

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 1:13 am

Zoloft wrote:Someone was talking to me the other day and spoke ill of Satan. I turned to him and said, "He always speaks highly of you, Chuck."

Note: I do not actually converse with Satan. I was using a figure of speech (T-H-L).

I can hear you; I'm right here.

Ross McPherson · Unread post by **Ross McPherson** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:36 am

Zoloft wrote:Someone was talking to me the other day and spoke ill of Satan. I turned to him and said, "He always speaks highly of you, Chuck."

Note: I do not actually converse with Satan. I was using a figure of speech (T-H-L).

Satan does a lot of original research at Wikipedia and that article is a pretty good example. Most of the cited texts are ancient and others look to have borderline relevance. The main text with any modern credibility is in Dutch, Imitatio by Jeroen Jansen, with a translation of the summary by Kristine Steenbergh, who seems to be another Dutch academic, linking to a blog where the translation can no longer be found. Hmmmm. Looks to me like Satan is a Dutchman in this case, with several other lesser devils putting their own oars in.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:49 am

Vigilant wrote:
Zoloft wrote:Someone was talking to me the other day and spoke ill of Satan. I turned to him and said, "He always speaks highly of you, Chuck."

Note: I do not actually converse with Satan. I was using a figure of speech (T-H-L).
I can hear you; I'm right here.

Ok, who read from the necrocomnicon?

Also, "dance, bitch".