Vigilant and his burned bridges - what about the ashes?

[Casliber]

Realistically, Vig has burned every bridge twice as far as getting back to Wikipedia as a Wikipedian goes.

RfB

Like how? Being acerbic is not a deal-breaker. I mean, I've seen Vig dump shit on people but so have many folks. Have you (Vig) outed anyone or sockpuppeted? I don't recall.

Folks, I am enjoying this digression, but I feel I must break it out into its own topic.

Good point - split away....

[Midsize Jake]

(a) I think you missed the irony.

And I think you missed what happened with Mr. Poetlister, who was deluded into thinking that by toadying to Mr. Brad he could somehow get some, if not all, of his accounts unblocked. (And he wasn't the only one either, he's just sort of the extreme against which others are graded.)

Obviously the two cases are completely different in almost every other way, but the fact remains, appealing to Mr. Brad because he "seems more reasonable than the others" is pointless and stupid under these conditions. If it gives Mr. Brad a nice feeling to play good-cop to almost everyone else's bad-cop, then fine, more power to him - but Mr. Vigilant's refusal to play that particular game isn't "irony," it's just Mr. Vigilant putting a higher value on his free time than other people do.

[greyed.out.fields]

...
I propose the title: VIG IS A BIG, SCARY MEANIE..... BOOOO!!!!!!!
t

But he's produced some damn fine records.
(Bits of the drum track very cool-y sampled from "Train in Vain" by The Clash, of course.)

[Vigilant]

Point me to someone that I outed that didn't already have massive problems.

Qworty, Little Green Rosetta, etc

I'd also like to point out that en.wp has done AB-SO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING to fix the damage Qworty did despite the sad little project Qworty which died an infant death.


Further, of the people I've dumped shit on, point to me someone who didn't deserve it.
Ryan Kaldari of snuffster.com fame?
Oliver Keyes of 'stab her in the throat fame'?

Make me a list of my sins and let's see what I have to atone for.

Better yet, look over my Tony Sideaway's block rationale.
No warnings, no communications, indef for you.

[Neotarf]

Better yet, look over my Tony Sideaway's block rationale.
No warnings, no communications, indef for you.

If you were a vandal, you would get five levels of carefully-worded templates, so you could be weaned away from your evil ways to become some day a valuable contributor. If you were being intentionally intransigent, you would have the arbs talking sweetly to you, one after another, asking you to agree to change your ways, and with former arbs whispering in your other ear, "FFS, say yes". But as soon as someone shows the capacity to understand and make a social contract, for some reason, it changes the whole game.

[Hex]

I'd also like to point out that en.wp has done AB-SO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING to fix the damage Qworty did despite the sad little project Qworty which died an infant death.

And the ColonelHenry one. Which you totally called me on. Sorry, I owe you a beer.

[Vigilant]

I'd also like to point out that en.wp has done AB-SO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING to fix the damage Qworty did despite the sad little project Qworty which died an infant death.

And the ColonelHenry one. Which you totally called me on. Sorry, I owe you a beer.

It was almost too easy.
The answer is the same for every single case.

I feel like I was cheating.

[Vigilant]

Holy three-brains, Batman, I wonder why the Merkey article on Encyclopedia Dramatica was deleted......

https://web.archive.org/web/20080213013 ... non_Merkey
https://web.archive.org/web/20081121021 ... non_Merkey

I didn't write or contribute to either version except indirectly mocking him at other message boards.

I restored it, and then removed the last section which was inserted somewhere between January 2008 and February 2008.

Jmerkey, intercock

Jmerkey is strongly suspected of being the Clicktard

Nothing of value was lost, it seems.

Here's another blast from the wayback machine
http://scofacts.org/merkey.html

Ooooh, ooooh, another.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=8710

And another
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s= ... t&p=281287

I remember when my memory was good.

[EricBarbour]

Here's another blast from the wayback machine
http://scofacts.org/merkey.html

Keep forgetting to save a copy of that. Today I did it, finally, and thanks for the reminder.

People keep asking me "not to talk about Merkey" because they're "afraid of him" because he "likes to sue people". Perhaps, but any judge who looks at that legal history would probably say "vexatious litigant" and bang his gavel -- on Merkey's fingers.

[Vigilant]

Here's another blast from the wayback machine
http://scofacts.org/merkey.html

Keep forgetting to save a copy of that. Today I did it, finally, and thanks for the reminder.

People keep asking me "not to talk about Merkey" because they're "afraid of him" because he "likes to sue people". Perhaps, but any judge who looks at that legal history would probably say "vexatious litigant" and bang his gavel -- on Merkey's fingers.

It's not his finger that the gavel tends to land on.

[Cedric]

People keep asking me "not to talk about Merkey" because they're "afraid of him" because he "likes to sue people". Perhaps, but any judge who looks at that legal history would probably say "vexatious litigant" and bang his gavel -- on Merkey's fingers.

Not to mention that he also is crazier than a tree full of raccoons on meth, as many vexatious litigants tend to be.

[The Garbage Scow]

This is a splendid trip down memory lane!

[Vigilant]

Point me to someone that I outed that didn't already have massive problems.

Qworty, Little Green Rosetta, etc

I'd also like to point out that en.wp has done AB-SO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING to fix the damage Qworty did despite the sad little project Qworty which died an infant death.


Further, of the people I've dumped shit on, point to me someone who didn't deserve it.
Ryan Kaldari of snuffster.com fame?
Oliver Keyes of 'stab her in the throat fame'?

Make me a list of my sins and let's see what I have to atone for.

Better yet, look over my Tony Sideaway's block rationale.
No warnings, no communications, indef for you.

Anything from Casliber or NYB?

*jimmy crickets*

[JCM]

Point me to someone that I outed that didn't already have massive problems.

Qworty, Little Green Rosetta, etc

I'd also like to point out that en.wp has done AB-SO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING to fix the damage Qworty did despite the sad little project Qworty which died an infant death.


Further, of the people I've dumped shit on, point to me someone who didn't deserve it.
Ryan Kaldari of snuffster.com fame?
Oliver Keyes of 'stab her in the throat fame'?

Make me a list of my sins and let's see what I have to atone for.

Better yet, look over my Tony Sideaway's block rationale.
No warnings, no communications, indef for you.

Anything from Casliber or NYB?

*jimmy crickets*

A few comments. First, I am much less than certain that it is necessarily considered required for admins to offer "warnings" to people whose edit history is, basically, purely problematic. AGF is not necessarily required when one has not seen any real evidence of good faith in the first place. And you yourself have pretty much admitted that during the single month the account was active stalking and what might be called trolling were pretty much the only thing you were doing. And, yeah, that was how many years ago? Policies and guidelines may have been more codified in the interim, and it might not happen as often now, or, alternately, it might be done rather quickly at ANI, with a talk page notice to that effect.

But, unfortunately, the fact that you at the time considered your edits appropriate, and I don't want to get into a discussion about what happened before my time as an editor, even though so far as I can see you never gave any evidence of necessarily being guided by any reasons other than the obvious more negative ones, doesn't mean that they could read your mind and know that you might have had a just cause. So far as I can see, you didn't go to ANI or any similar page to discuss the matters with anyone either. That being the case, the fact that you didn't give any indication of wanting to "discuss" anything either can not unreasonably be seen as being an indication that discussion wasn't your motivation, but some form of pure trolling was. And a lot of admins still block without prior warning on that basis, although, generally, it is done after the subject is at least first mentioned on one of the noticeboards today.

[Vigilant]

Point me to someone that I outed that didn't already have massive problems.

Qworty, Little Green Rosetta, etc

I'd also like to point out that en.wp has done AB-SO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING to fix the damage Qworty did despite the sad little project Qworty which died an infant death.


Further, of the people I've dumped shit on, point to me someone who didn't deserve it.
Ryan Kaldari of snuffster.com fame?
Oliver Keyes of 'stab her in the throat fame'?

Make me a list of my sins and let's see what I have to atone for.

Better yet, look over my Tony Sideaway's block rationale.
No warnings, no communications, indef for you.

Anything from Casliber or NYB?

*jimmy crickets*

A few comments. First, I am much less than certain that it is necessarily considered required for admins to offer "warnings" to people whose edit history is, basically, purely problematic.

They were charmed by a psychopath and let him have free run.
He maligned and libeled multiple people.
If reverting and bringing it to everyone's attention is "purely problematic" then I'm not sure we have anything to discuss.

AGF is not necessarily required when one has not seen any real evidence of good faith in the first place.

This assumes that the people attempting to apply AGF actually do so in good faith.
I'd be very surprised if you could find many instances of Tony Sidaway acting in "good faith"
I knew him when he was the penultimate USENET troll.

And you yourself have pretty much admitted that during the single month the account was active stalking and what might be called trolling were pretty much the only thing you were doing.

Herein lies the heart of the dispute.
Jeff Merkey, from his earliest work, was using wikipedia to either:
* promote dingbat ideas in articles, e.g. the (loosely quoted)"special accommodation that the federal government has with the Cherokee Nation that would allow Jeff Merkey to have the FBI investigate and prosecute anyone who claimed Indian status on wikipedia that didn't deserve it." etc, etc
* defame people he didn't like. E.g. Eric Schmidt from Novell, PJ from Groklaw, various people he'd had other conflicts with.
* insert nearly random nonsense from his own internal pantheon of gobbledegook
* plagiarize reference books and insert the material whole cloth copied into article. e.g. cactus wars.

He eventually was "discovered" when he could no longer keep his obvious mental illness hidden from even the "literati" on en.wp. e.g. the fudgepacker debacle and five ARBCOM cases and RfCs

And, yeah, that was how many years ago? Policies and guidelines may have been more codified in the interim, and it might not happen as often now, or, alternately, it might be done rather quickly at ANI, with a talk page notice to that effect.

Tony Sidaway did it on his own after Jeff Merkey hoodwinked him and nobody lifted a finger or cared.
He also convinced other early power users: MONGO, JzG, Jimmy Wales, SlimVirgin, etc, etc

You want pissed off people because that's how you get pissed off people.

"Yeah, yeah, we have a delusional psychopath editing our articles in inappropriate ways, but you're making fun of him?!?! Out you go, heathen!"
Precisely the opposite of what an actual encyclopedia would do.

But, unfortunately, the fact that you at the time considered your edits appropriate, and I don't want to get into a discussion about what happened before my time as an editor, even though so far as I can see you never gave any evidence of necessarily being guided by any reasons other than the obvious more negative ones, doesn't mean that they could read your mind and know that you might have had a just cause.

Read above. His edits were poisonous to the project.
I started out trying to defend what I thought was a really good idea, wikipedia, and ended up being shown the dark underbelly of the project which drove me to wikipediareview, at which point I was confirmed as one of the fallen.

So far as I can see, you didn't go to ANI or any similar page to discuss the matters with anyone either.

Indef blocked with talk page access removed shortly after... Or, I could have socked...
Realistically, ANI should be exempted from the indef block. It would simplify appeals of bad blocks.

That being the case, the fact that you didn't give any indication of wanting to "discuss" anything either can not unreasonably be seen as being an indication that discussion wasn't your motivation, but some form of pure trolling was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... fensive.3F

And a lot of admins still block without prior warning on that basis, although, generally, it is done after the subject is at least first mentioned on one of the noticeboards today.

Thanks for confirming that there are a lot of abusive admins who refuse to follow the rules when dealing with the little people.

In the long run, it turned out better for me.
I'd have become a productive editor in math, computer science, technology, various sports, etc, etc
I'd have devoted long hours to trying to make things better, battled the trolls at ANI, probably become an admin, maybe ARBCOM, bureaucrat or checkuser. Probably joined a chapter and gone to some of the meetups.

I'd have wasted a ton of time working with a fundamentally broken power structure only to eventually get pissed off an leave.
I'd have a splinter in my mind about those wasted hours.

Instead, we are here...

[iii]

In the long run, it turned out better for me.
I'd have become a productive editor in math, computer science, technology, various sports, etc, etc
I'd have devoted long hours to trying to make things better, battled the trolls at ANI, probably become an admin, maybe ARBCOM, bureaucrat or checkuser. Probably joined a chapter and gone to some of the meetups.

I'd have wasted a ton of time working with a fundamentally broken power structure only to eventually get pissed off an leave.
I'd have a splinter in my mind about those wasted hours.

Instead, we are here...

You and I both know that the powers-that-be aren't good enough to track you down if you just started a new account, so why is it important to get your old one back? In my case, it was the association with me personally that became too difficult to manage (don't go starting user accounts on websites without considering the long-term implications). What is it for you?

[Vigilant]

In the long run, it turned out better for me.
I'd have become a productive editor in math, computer science, technology, various sports, etc, etc
I'd have devoted long hours to trying to make things better, battled the trolls at ANI, probably become an admin, maybe ARBCOM, bureaucrat or checkuser. Probably joined a chapter and gone to some of the meetups.

I'd have wasted a ton of time working with a fundamentally broken power structure only to eventually get pissed off an leave.
I'd have a splinter in my mind about those wasted hours.

Instead, we are here...

You and I both know that the powers-that-be aren't good enough to track you down if you just started a new account, so why is it important to get your old one back?

It's the principle involved.
Being unjustly blocked led to a decade long war.
Almost all of the en.wp antagonists involved int he situation have either quit or been banned.
I will outlast them all.

It costs them nothing to admit it was done wrongly and lift the block.

In my case, it was the association with me personally that became too difficult to manage (don't go starting user accounts on websites without considering the long-term implications). What is it for you?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

[iii]

In the long run, it turned out better for me.
I'd have become a productive editor in math, computer science, technology, various sports, etc, etc
I'd have devoted long hours to trying to make things better, battled the trolls at ANI, probably become an admin, maybe ARBCOM, bureaucrat or checkuser. Probably joined a chapter and gone to some of the meetups.

I'd have wasted a ton of time working with a fundamentally broken power structure only to eventually get pissed off an leave.
I'd have a splinter in my mind about those wasted hours.

Instead, we are here...

You and I both know that the powers-that-be aren't good enough to track you down if you just started a new account, so why is it important to get your old one back?

It's the principle involved.
Being unjustly blocked led to a decade long war.
Almost all of the en.wp antagonists involved int he situation have either quit or been banned.
I will outlast them all.

It costs them nothing to admit it was done wrongly and lift the block.

In my case, it was the association with me personally that became too difficult to manage (don't go starting user accounts on websites without considering the long-term implications). What is it for you?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

I think you answered it. You want justice. Wikipedia is uniquely designed to thwart that kind of desire. Carry on.

[Vigilant]

In the long run, it turned out better for me.
I'd have become a productive editor in math, computer science, technology, various sports, etc, etc
I'd have devoted long hours to trying to make things better, battled the trolls at ANI, probably become an admin, maybe ARBCOM, bureaucrat or checkuser. Probably joined a chapter and gone to some of the meetups.

I'd have wasted a ton of time working with a fundamentally broken power structure only to eventually get pissed off an leave.
I'd have a splinter in my mind about those wasted hours.

Instead, we are here...

You and I both know that the powers-that-be aren't good enough to track you down if you just started a new account, so why is it important to get your old one back?

It's the principle involved.
Being unjustly blocked led to a decade long war.
Almost all of the en.wp antagonists involved int he situation have either quit or been banned.
I will outlast them all.

It costs them nothing to admit it was done wrongly and lift the block.

In my case, it was the association with me personally that became too difficult to manage (don't go starting user accounts on websites without considering the long-term implications). What is it for you?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

I think you answered it. You want justice. Wikipedia is uniquely designed to thwart that kind of desire. Carry on.

That's not what I said or meant.
I want them to stop being shitheels to random newbies.

At this point, I've more than had my revenge.
I'd settle for the apology, admission of their sins and a promise never to do it again.

Call it the VIGILANT:STANDARDOFFER

[iii]

I want them to stop being shitheels to random newbies.

At this point, I've more than had my revenge.
I'd settle for the apology, admission of their sins and a promise never to do it again.

I don't see how you'll ever get any of your demands met. The most active users just don't care about that stuff and, rather, have no desire to ever admit that they have ever done anything wrong.

[Vigilant]

I want them to stop being shitheels to random newbies.

At this point, I've more than had my revenge.
I'd settle for the apology, admission of their sins and a promise never to do it again.

I don't see how you'll ever get any of your demands met. The most active users just don't care about that stuff and, rather, have no desire to ever admit that they have ever done anything wrong.

Most users there don't want me digging into their past wrongs and identities.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the one getting the short end of the stick.

Ask Oliver Keyes and Ryan Kaldari whether they wish they'd been less shitty to people.

[iii]

Most users there don't want me digging into their past wrongs and identities.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the one getting the short end of the stick.

Ask Oliver Keyes and Ryan Kaldari whether they wish they'd been less shitty to people.

Sure, you might be able to convince a handful of mucky-mucks (or, more likely, wannabes) that they were wrong, but it seems to me like you're asking for something like a community consensus of contrition. As part of the normal herding cats problem, you'll be exposed to those very members of the "community" who persist in the behavior you rightly decry the most. Are you going to sit idly by while they hurl invectives and muddy the waters?

Even if you survive the show trial, let's say we get a "closing admin" to say all the things you want "Wikipedia" to say. They unblock you and let you go on your way. You know that within moments some drahmaboards-troll is going to bring up the history of bad blood as a means to say, "screw you". Won't your moral indignation kick in at that point?

My basic point is, I don't see how you'll survive as long as you need to be told you're right because Wikipedia only lets back in the forsaken if they can generally ignore the trolls. How's it that you'll be able to deal with the next Little Green Rosetta on wiki without having yourself re-dragged through the ringer?

[Triptych]

In the long run, it turned out better for me.
I'd have become a productive editor in math, computer science, technology, various sports, etc, etc
I'd have devoted long hours to trying to make things better, battled the trolls at ANI, probably become an admin, maybe ARBCOM, bureaucrat or checkuser. Probably joined a chapter and gone to some of the meetups.

I'd have wasted a ton of time working with a fundamentally broken power structure only to eventually get pissed off an leave.
I'd have a splinter in my mind about those wasted hours.

Instead, we are here...

It's cool that you are forthcoming about this. I think our roles as critics of Wikipedia are as important and probably more so, than what we'd alternately be doing with the time as editors at Wikipedia. I was reading an article the other day, about some media personality active from the 1930s to the 1950s. The article was just disjointed and accentuated according to the interests of the last person that edited it. It was scarred and marred by the last administrative drone deleting stuff because someone templated or otherwise flagged it, but said drone without the inclination or, less charitably, the intellect to understand the material he or she was mutilating but nonetheless proceeding because, you know, Huggle and Twinkle.

As to why I went to Wikipedia for the article, it was because there was a lot of stuff there. Remnants of various iterations over the years by editors who had researched this or that. And often one can't find that except at Wikipedia. At the same time I felt disgusted or even a bit dirty subjecting my brain to the poor quality of the article. Sentences that don't make sense, poor organization or narrative quality, diversions into truly tangential stuff tinted with the opinion of whomever the editors were. Overall awful, but again underneath the muck and problems there was a collage of information that I'd have to spend many hours finding any other way, and of course you can go to the sources at the bottom which is perhaps the greatest advantage of any Wikipedia article: a directory of sources.

But back to being a Wikipedia critic, I really do think it's a more valuable pursuit than being a participant in that wretched administrative system. That system is infested with so many people playing it like an MMORPG or participating like a social network. The very worst bubbles to the top of that hierarchy. When I was an actively editing, for years I had *no idea* of the administrative side of Wikipedia. I was sort of interested in the policies, like reliable sources WP:RS, but you could say "Arbcom" or "ANI" to me and I'd say "what are they?" And then I became acquainted with them, and see them as hellish things in need of correction. A supremely stupid system populated oh-so-heavily by cyberbullies, and not attracting the kind of people that could potentially improve it, in fact dominated by characters determined to maintain it just as it is. This thinking was borne out to me when I noticed before writing this that you had travails at WP:AN/ANI in 2006. That awful chatboard is still there and getting even worse.

[JCM]

Most users there don't want me digging into their past wrongs and identities.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the one getting the short end of the stick.

Ask Oliver Keyes and Ryan Kaldari whether they wish they'd been less shitty to people.

Sure, you might be able to convince a handful of mucky-mucks (or, more likely, wannabes) that they were wrong, but it seems to me like you're asking for something like a community consensus of contrition. As part of the normal herding cats problem, you'll be exposed to those very members of the "community" who persist in the behavior you rightly decry the most. Are you going to sit idly by while they hurl invectives and muddy the waters?

Even if you survive the show trial, let's say we get a "closing admin" to say all the things you want "Wikipedia" to say. They unblock you and let you go on your way. You know that within moments some drahmaboards-troll is going to bring up the history of bad blood as a means to say, "screw you". Won't your moral indignation kick in at that point?

My basic point is, I don't see how you'll survive as long as you need to be told you're right because Wikipedia only lets back in the forsaken if they can generally ignore the trolls. How's it that you'll be able to deal with the next Little Green Rosetta on wiki without having yourself re-dragged through the ringer?

He has a point. You seem to be requesting that, nine years after the fact, the community of today say that the actions of 9 years ago were wrong. I really don't think that happens anywhere, considering most of the people involved at the time aren't there now, and, honestly, despite your thinking that perhaps you couldn't have done anything better, you probably could have, like maybe going to a noticeboard or an admin before you were blocked and pointing out the problems you saw. But you didn't do that. Frankly, I have to say that trolling only accounts are still blocked without warning fairly often. Most of the time that isn't considered problematic. And you've pretty much said that was what you were doing.

The best you could reasonably expect anyone to say at this point is that had you raised concerns at the time, you might well have not been blocked, but you may not, in your roughly one month of editing, been told how to do that. Also, having not been an editor at all back then, I don't know how different it was then than it is now, and, for all I know, maybe it was waaay to much of a cowboy justice system then. But that is beside the point of whether you have any honest chance of getting the editors of today to say that the editors of then were wrong. Think how many people have refused to "apologize" for the slavery of hundreds of years ago recently and think about maybe why they didn't and I think you will know why.

Also, as I think I may have asked before, what would you do if you were unblocked? If it were to be just a dramatic rejection of the place because of what happened to you nine years ago, uh, that's not much of a reason to live a block, y'know? If you wouldn't be there to build an encyclopedia as that term is generally defined there would be no reason for anyone to lift the block.

What would you do towards building an encyclopedia if you were unblocked?

[Vigilant]

Most users there don't want me digging into their past wrongs and identities.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the one getting the short end of the stick.

Ask Oliver Keyes and Ryan Kaldari whether they wish they'd been less shitty to people.

Sure, you might be able to convince a handful of mucky-mucks (or, more likely, wannabes) that they were wrong, but it seems to me like you're asking for something like a community consensus of contrition. As part of the normal herding cats problem, you'll be exposed to those very members of the "community" who persist in the behavior you rightly decry the most. Are you going to sit idly by while they hurl invectives and muddy the waters?

Even if you survive the show trial, let's say we get a "closing admin" to say all the things you want "Wikipedia" to say. They unblock you and let you go on your way. You know that within moments some drahmaboards-troll is going to bring up the history of bad blood as a means to say, "screw you". Won't your moral indignation kick in at that point?

My basic point is, I don't see how you'll survive as long as you need to be told you're right because Wikipedia only lets back in the forsaken if they can generally ignore the trolls. How's it that you'll be able to deal with the next Little Green Rosetta on wiki without having yourself re-dragged through the ringer?

He has a point. You seem to be requesting that, nine years after the fact, the community of today say that the actions of 9 years ago were wrong.

I mentioned getting my Vigilant account unblocked as a Herculean task, impossible to complete.

I really don't think that happens anywhere, considering most of the people involved at the time aren't there now, and, honestly, despite your thinking that perhaps you couldn't have done anything better, you probably could have, like maybe going to a noticeboard or an admin before you were blocked and pointing out the problems you saw.

When you first get to wikipedia, who the hell knows how to do that stuff?
Even if I did, I'd have been blocked as a sockpuppet of a non-new-user.

But you didn't do that. Frankly, I have to say that trolling only accounts are still blocked without warning fairly often. Most of the time that isn't considered problematic. And you've pretty much said that was what you were doing.

As you'll recall, I didn't come to en.wp to troll. I saw a dangerous lunatic shitting up something interesting.
Egging Merkey on was just the cherry on top.

What floors me still is just how long, years, that it took en.wp to come to its collective senses about Jeff Merkey, even, especially, after being told exactly what he was doing.

The best you could reasonably expect anyone to say at this point is that had you raised concerns at the time, you might well have not been blocked, but you may not, in your roughly one month of editing, been told how to do that. Also, having not been an editor at all back then, I don't know how different it was then than it is now, and, for all I know, maybe it was waaay to much of a cowboy justice system then. But that is beside the point of whether you have any honest chance of getting the editors of today to say that the editors of then were wrong. Think how many people have refused to "apologize" for the slavery of hundreds of years ago recently and think about maybe why they didn't and I think you will know why.

And Japanese comfort women and and and
It still makes the original people shitheels and their defenders worse, since they should know better with a more modern perspective.
Yet they still soldier on carrying the company's/cult's doctrine forward into the next breach.

Also, as I think I may have asked before, what would you do if you were unblocked?

I don't know.
As I said above, I proposed my account unblocking, somewhat whimsically, as a Herculean task.
Others mistook my mirth for a serious proposal and began suggesting courses and options.

If it were to be just a dramatic rejection of the place because of what happened to you nine years ago, uh, that's not much of a reason to live a block, y'know? If you wouldn't be there to build an encyclopedia as that term is generally defined there would be no reason for anyone to lift the block.

Not sure what you're getting at here.

However, I would posit that I've had a rather larger impact on wikipedia, in retrospect, than most people do during their tenures as editors.

What would you do towards building an encyclopedia if you were unblocked?

I'm not going to run rampant, if that's what you're asking.
I've already agreed to stay away from the deleted Jeff Merkey article.

If you can get this to happen, then I'll use that account for productive purposes, broadly construed.
It's the best offer you'll get.

[JCM]

Most users there don't want me digging into their past wrongs and identities.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the one getting the short end of the stick.

Ask Oliver Keyes and Ryan Kaldari whether they wish they'd been less shitty to people.

Sure, you might be able to convince a handful of mucky-mucks (or, more likely, wannabes) that they were wrong, but it seems to me like you're asking for something like a community consensus of contrition. As part of the normal herding cats problem, you'll be exposed to those very members of the "community" who persist in the behavior you rightly decry the most. Are you going to sit idly by while they hurl invectives and muddy the waters?

Even if you survive the show trial, let's say we get a "closing admin" to say all the things you want "Wikipedia" to say. They unblock you and let you go on your way. You know that within moments some drahmaboards-troll is going to bring up the history of bad blood as a means to say, "screw you". Won't your moral indignation kick in at that point?

My basic point is, I don't see how you'll survive as long as you need to be told you're right because Wikipedia only lets back in the forsaken if they can generally ignore the trolls. How's it that you'll be able to deal with the next Little Green Rosetta on wiki without having yourself re-dragged through the ringer?

He has a point. You seem to be requesting that, nine years after the fact, the community of today say that the actions of 9 years ago were wrong.

I mentioned getting my Vigilant account unblocked as a Herculean task, impossible to complete.

I really don't think that happens anywhere, considering most of the people involved at the time aren't there now, and, honestly, despite your thinking that perhaps you couldn't have done anything better, you probably could have, like maybe going to a noticeboard or an admin before you were blocked and pointing out the problems you saw.

When you first get to wikipedia, who the hell knows how to do that stuff?
Even if I did, I'd have been blocked as a sockpuppet of a non-new-user.

But you didn't do that. Frankly, I have to say that trolling only accounts are still blocked without warning fairly often. Most of the time that isn't considered problematic. And you've pretty much said that was what you were doing.

As you'll recall, I didn't come to en.wp to troll. I saw a dangerous lunatic shitting up something interesting.
Egging Merkey on was just the cherry on top.

What floors me still is just how long, years, that it took en.wp to come to its collective senses about Jeff Merkey, even, especially, after being told exactly what he was doing.

The best you could reasonably expect anyone to say at this point is that had you raised concerns at the time, you might well have not been blocked, but you may not, in your roughly one month of editing, been told how to do that. Also, having not been an editor at all back then, I don't know how different it was then than it is now, and, for all I know, maybe it was waaay to much of a cowboy justice system then. But that is beside the point of whether you have any honest chance of getting the editors of today to say that the editors of then were wrong. Think how many people have refused to "apologize" for the slavery of hundreds of years ago recently and think about maybe why they didn't and I think you will know why.

And Japanese comfort women and and and
It still makes the original people shitheels and their defenders worse, since they should know better with a more modern perspective.
Yet they still soldier on carrying the company's/cult's doctrine forward into the next breach.

Also, as I think I may have asked before, what would you do if you were unblocked?

I don't know.
As I said above, I proposed my account unblocking, somewhat whimsically, as a Herculean task.
Others mistook my mirth for a serious proposal and began suggesting courses and options.

If it were to be just a dramatic rejection of the place because of what happened to you nine years ago, uh, that's not much of a reason to live a block, y'know? If you wouldn't be there to build an encyclopedia as that term is generally defined there would be no reason for anyone to lift the block.

Not sure what you're getting at here.

However, I would posit that I've had a rather larger impact on wikipedia, in retrospect, than most people do during their tenures as editors.

What would you do towards building an encyclopedia if you were unblocked?

I'm not going to run rampant, if that's what you're asking.
I've already agreed to stay away from the deleted Jeff Merkey article.

If you can get this to happen, then I'll use that account for productive purposes, broadly construed.
It's the best offer you'll get.

FWIW, like I at least implicitly said before, I don't necessarily hold you or any new editor responsible for not knowing things, including how to use all the damn noticeboards. And I wouldn't mind myself sponsoring your account being unblocked, maybe at least temporarily, if you choose to take another name, because most of us have to have just one account. But I could, I guess, see the chance that maybe you could be unblocked if you were to indicate what you might do. If nothing else, although I obviously haven't done much of this myself, articles on reference works or college-or-higher level textbooks in particular topics, including science, which I'm guessing is your field?, would be really helpful. And content of that sort, and maybe helping people access it, by maybe doing some stuff at the Wikipedia:Resource Exchange (T-H-L), would be useful and give people a reason for the block to be lifted. iii and others can say that we still need a lot of help dealing with all the nutjob new stuff that gets generated. Including Psychopuncture (T-H-L). God help me, I am not making that one up.

Regarding the degree of your impact here, honestly, I don't have a clue. I never really looked at any of the criticism sites till last year.

The only real obstacle I could see would be that at least to my eyes you seem to still, nine years after the fact, be carrying a chip on your shoulder of architectural proportions about the block. People make mistakes, including admins and arbs and all the other humans out there. And Andreas among others can show that even people who are very critical of the site can still be valued and welcome, as people anyway, if not on all the things they want to talk about. The big obstacle would be your still-ongoing rather obvious grudge, I think.

[Triptych]

FWIW, like I at least implicitly said before, I don't necessarily hold you or any new editor responsible for not knowing things, including how to use all the damn noticeboards. And I wouldn't mind myself sponsoring your account being unblocked, maybe at least temporarily, if you choose to take another name, because most of us have to have just one account. But...

Don't try to play him to conform and meet conditions, he's too smart and independent. Just go ahead and do it, if you are going to do it. And under his username, what is that bull about?