Wikipediocracy

Vigilant wrote:Eric's a shitheel who will be a shitheel for as long as he's allowed on wikipedia.

No amount of "good work" that nobody reads will make it OK for him to shit on whoever he wants to.
That the "trusted insiders" at WP can't figure this out screams volumes about the overall management structure there.

Given the acidic comments you are wont to make, this comes across as somewhat ironic really.

Casliber wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Eric's a shitheel who will be a shitheel for as long as he's allowed on wikipedia.

No amount of "good work" that nobody reads will make it OK for him to shit on whoever he wants to.
That the "trusted insiders" at WP can't figure this out screams volumes about the overall management structure there.

Given the acidic comments you are wont to make, this comes across as somewhat ironic really.

What bullshit. Vigilant is not attempting to be part of a cooperative encyclopaedia project.

Casliber wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Eric's a shitheel who will be a shitheel for as long as he's allowed on wikipedia.

No amount of "good work" that nobody reads will make it OK for him to shit on whoever he wants to.
That the "trusted insiders" at WP can't figure this out screams volumes about the overall management structure there.

Given the acidic comments you are wont to make, this comes across as somewhat ironic really.

Please let me know when I am a valued member of the Wikipedia community.

Vigilant wrote:

Casliber wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Eric's a shitheel who will be a shitheel for as long as he's allowed on wikipedia.

No amount of "good work" that nobody reads will make it OK for him to shit on whoever he wants to.
That the "trusted insiders" at WP can't figure this out screams volumes about the overall management structure there.

Given the acidic comments you are wont to make, this comes across as somewhat ironic really.

Please let me know when I am a valued member of the Wikipedia community.

I value you as a member of the Wikipedia community, Vig...

RfB

Randy from Boise wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Casliber wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Eric's a shitheel who will be a shitheel for as long as he's allowed on wikipedia.

No amount of "good work" that nobody reads will make it OK for him to shit on whoever he wants to.
That the "trusted insiders" at WP can't figure this out screams volumes about the overall management structure there.

Given the acidic comments you are wont to make, this comes across as somewhat ironic really.

Please let me know when I am a valued member of the Wikipedia community.

I value you as a member of the Wikipedia community, Vig...

RfB

:swoon:

Get my ass unblocked then.

Vigilant wrote:Please let me know when I am a valued member of the Wikipedia community.

The trouble is that there is no such thing as "the Wikipedia community", which is why "community ban" is such a ludicrous concept. There are presumably several Wikipedia editors in good stead, even admins, who value you. They are surely part of the community, as much as your detractors.

Vigilant wrote::swoon:
Get my ass unblocked then.

You merely have to apologise sincerely and contritely for your past sins, and promise never to sin again.

And not be called "Vigilant".

Vigilant wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Casliber wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Eric's a shitheel who will be a shitheel for as long as he's allowed on wikipedia.

No amount of "good work" that nobody reads will make it OK for him to shit on whoever he wants to.
That the "trusted insiders" at WP can't figure this out screams volumes about the overall management structure there.

Given the acidic comments you are wont to make, this comes across as somewhat ironic really.

Please let me know when I am a valued member of the Wikipedia community.

I value you as a member of the Wikipedia community, Vig.. RfB

:swoon:Get my ass unblocked then.

Haaaaahahahahaha blocked by Tony Sidaway, nine years ago. Man, Wikipedia knows how to hold a grudge.

TungstenCarbide wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Casliber wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Eric's a shitheel who will be a shitheel for as long as he's allowed on wikipedia.

No amount of "good work" that nobody reads will make it OK for him to shit on whoever he wants to.
That the "trusted insiders" at WP can't figure this out screams volumes about the overall management structure there.

Given the acidic comments you are wont to make, this comes across as somewhat ironic really.

Please let me know when I am a valued member of the Wikipedia community.

I value you as a member of the Wikipedia community, Vig.. RfB

:swoon:Get my ass unblocked then.

Haaaaahahahahaha blocked by Tony Sidaway, nine years ago. Man, Wikipedia knows how to hold a grudge.

I've gotten pretty good at that too.

What's funny about this is that had they followed their own rules, I would never have latched on to en.wp and its multitudinous foibles.

You can all thank Tony Sidaway for creating one of your most virulent and determined critics with his heavy handed tactics.

Vigilant wrote:What's funny about this is that had they followed their own rules, I would never have latched on to en.wp and its multitudinous foibles.

Vigilant, you piss me off a fair portion of the time, but I know I'll be borrowing the phrase "multitudinous foibles" for on-wiki use, so let me know where you want the royalties sent.

Newyorkbrad wrote:

Vigilant wrote:What's funny about this is that had they followed their own rules, I would never have latched on to en.wp and its multitudinous foibles.

Vigilant, you piss me off a fair portion of the time, but I know I'll be borrowing the phrase "multitudinous foibles" for on-wiki use, so let me know where you want the royalties sent.

Kevin Gorman's rehabilitation fund.

Vigilant wrote:

TungstenCarbide wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Casliber wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Eric's a shitheel who will be a shitheel for as long as he's allowed on wikipedia.

No amount of "good work" that nobody reads will make it OK for him to shit on whoever he wants to.
That the "trusted insiders" at WP can't figure this out screams volumes about the overall management structure there.

Given the acidic comments you are wont to make, this comes across as somewhat ironic really.

Please let me know when I am a valued member of the Wikipedia community.

I value you as a member of the Wikipedia community, Vig.. RfB

:swoon:Get my ass unblocked then.

Haaaaahahahahaha blocked by Tony Sidaway, nine years ago. Man, Wikipedia knows how to hold a grudge.

I've gotten pretty good at that too.

What's funny about this is that had they followed their own rules, I would never have latched on to en.wp and its multitudinous foibles.

You can all thank Tony Sidaway for creating one of your most virulent and determined critics with his heavy handed tactics.

Ditto with Greg Kohs being treated like shit almost a decade ago and paying it forward...

You'd think they might start to see a pattern, but I doubt it.

RfB

Vigilant wrote:Kevin Gorman's habilitation fund.

FTFY

(Kidding, Kevin. Kidding.)

Randy from Boise wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

TungstenCarbide wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Casliber wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Eric's a shitheel who will be a shitheel for as long as he's allowed on wikipedia.

No amount of "good work" that nobody reads will make it OK for him to shit on whoever he wants to.
That the "trusted insiders" at WP can't figure this out screams volumes about the overall management structure there.

Given the acidic comments you are wont to make, this comes across as somewhat ironic really.

Please let me know when I am a valued member of the Wikipedia community.

I value you as a member of the Wikipedia community, Vig.. RfB

:swoon:Get my ass unblocked then.

Haaaaahahahahaha blocked by Tony Sidaway, nine years ago. Man, Wikipedia knows how to hold a grudge.

I've gotten pretty good at that too.

What's funny about this is that had they followed their own rules, I would never have latched on to en.wp and its multitudinous foibles.

You can all thank Tony Sidaway for creating one of your most virulent and determined critics with his heavy handed tactics.

Ditto with Greg Kohs being treated like shit almost a decade ago and paying it forward...

You'd think they might start to see a pattern, but I doubt it.

RfB

I think they probably do see a small pattern in those few select individuals, but, unfortunately, it can be a real bitch to differentiate between individuals who will follow this pattern and others who, thankfully, either turn into sockpuppeting trolls who can be fairly easily identified or just give up. Now, if there were a way to identify the personal characteristics which would be found in persons like Vig and Greg as opposed to persons like, for instance, PassaMethod, I think the WMF would love to see it.

Here's an idea: don't be shit heads to people just because you can. You never know how much they're willing to fuck your shit up.

Vigilant wrote:

TungstenCarbide wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

Casliber wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Eric's a shitheel who will be a shitheel for as long as he's allowed on wikipedia.

No amount of "good work" that nobody reads will make it OK for him to shit on whoever he wants to.
That the "trusted insiders" at WP can't figure this out screams volumes about the overall management structure there.

Given the acidic comments you are wont to make, this comes across as somewhat ironic really.

Please let me know when I am a valued member of the Wikipedia community.

I value you as a member of the Wikipedia community, Vig.. RfB

:swoon:Get my ass unblocked then.

Haaaaahahahahaha blocked by Tony Sidaway, nine years ago. Man, Wikipedia knows how to hold a grudge.

I've gotten pretty good at that too.

What's funny about this is that had they followed their own rules, I would never have latched on to en.wp and its multitudinous foibles.

You can all thank Tony Sidaway for creating one of your most virulent and determined critics with his heavy handed tactics.

I'd put in an image of Professor Chaos at this point but I can't be fucked looking for one. Arsing around condoning one's own acerbic exchanges based on whether one is or is not a wikipedian is puerile in the extreme. That said, if the Merky stuff was the only reason you got banned/blocked...that seems.......pretty heavy. I wasn't around the drama pages for that time period so am not familiar with events.

Read my contributions and talk page.

make up your own damn mind.

Vigilant wrote:Read my contributions and talk page.

make up your own damn mind.

I started to - looked like a bunch or argy-bargy. My time is limited and sleep deprivation make my attnetion span short. Hence pointers are helpful

Casliber wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Read my contributions and talk page.

make up your own damn mind.

I started to - looked like a bunch or argy-bargy. My time is limited and sleep deprivation make my attnetion span short. Hence pointers are helpful

I'd like to know what happened there, too. A summary from you with diffs would be appreciated. If you're not interested, I'll look into it when I've got a bit more time.

Short and sweet since I'm doing other stuff right now.

Jeff Merkey gets in on the SCO vs the world attempted Linux shakedown.
He gets righteously ridiculed.
He does his blathering and tries to sue 200 John Does for pointing out that he's a net.kook.
He gets righteously ridiculed.
He goes onto wikipedia and starts libeling people (PJ from Grokloaw, Linux Torvalds, Eric Schmidt from Novell, now Google, etc)
Myself and a few others notice and try to revert him.
Jeff buddies up to a bunch of the sycophant collectors from the early days.
We ridicule Jeff.
We all get blocked.
Jeff runs rampant.
Jeff eventually gets indefed.
He socks, we laugh at him, lather, rinse, repeat.

At some point, he utterly loses his mind and totters off into the weeds claiming he'd be writing books that would make all current physics useless garbage.

Casliber wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Read my contributions and talk page.

make up your own damn mind.

I started to - looked like a bunch or argy-bargy. My time is limited and sleep deprivation make my attnetion span short. Hence pointers are helpful

So what you're saying is that you're quite happy to just believe the words of people who say something you're inclined to believe, but can't be stuffed checking out something that might contradict it.

You're an "academic", right?

Can you manage to read the talk page?

Vigilant wrote:Can you manage to read the talk page?

I'm guessing the talk page you mean, just for purposes of clarification, is User talk:Vigilant (T-C-L). Having hit the edit button there, I see the statement Tony included in his indeff block is "Sole purpose to harass banned user, Jeff Merkey." From what I can see, the account was created or at least first used in March 2006 and the indeff placed in April 2006. I do see some edits which might not be directly related to the socker, at Talk:Joe Byrd (Cherokee chief) (T-H-L) and Piezoelectricity (T-H-L). I hate to say that, in a sense, the claim of the blocker that watching Merkey was the "sole purpose" of the account may not have been completely off base, but, at the same time, I can and do see that, maybe, your coming in for the generally reasonable purpose of preventing a loon from acting in the way he would be expected to was a good one, and that there might well have been a chance of your doing other things later which might not relate to the loon, who I assume is the Jeff V. Merkey (T-H-L) about whom the relevant AfD text has been hidden for "privacy reasons."

As I've said before, I'm not an admin anymore, and I rather doubt that my own word on its own would, necessarily, carry much weight. But I also can and do think that, maybe, particularly if you indicated you had an interest in editing material unrelated to the loon Merkey, I could at least request that the indeff be lifted, if you wanted. I have no idea what your other interests may really be, given the short history, but there is a lot of stuff that is still at a poor level that could use some work.

JCM wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Can you manage to read the talk page?

I'm guessing the talk page you mean, just for purposes of clarification, is User talk:Vigilant (T-C-L). Having hit the edit button there, I see the statement Tony included in his indeff block is "Sole purpose to harass banned user, Jeff Merkey." From what I can see, the account was created or at least first used in March 2006 and the indeff placed in April 2006. I do see some edits which might not be directly related to the socker, at Talk:Joe Byrd (Cherokee chief) (T-H-L) and Piezoelectricity (T-H-L). I hate to say that, in a sense, the claim of the blocker that watching Merkey was the "sole purpose" of the account may not have been completely off base, but, at the same time, I can and do see that, maybe, your coming in for the generally reasonable purpose of preventing a loon from acting in the way he would be expected to was a good one, and that there might well have been a chance of your doing other things later which might not relate to the loon, who I assume is the Jeff V. Merkey (T-H-L) about whom the relevant AfD text has been hidden for "privacy reasons."

As I've said before, I'm not an admin anymore, and I rather doubt that my own word on its own would, necessarily, carry much weight. But I also can and do think that, maybe, particularly if you indicated you had an interest in editing material unrelated to the loon Merkey, I could at least request that the indeff be lifted, if you wanted. I have no idea what your other interests may really be, given the short history, but there is a lot of stuff that is still at a poor level that could use some work.

Merkey is living in a single wide trailer in New Mexico the last I heard, having finally lost his mind.
I will gleefully promise not to edit Merkey related articles on en.wp.

Good luck getting the Vigilant account unblocked.

Vigilant wrote:

JCM wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Can you manage to read the talk page?

I'm guessing the talk page you mean, just for purposes of clarification, is User talk:Vigilant (T-C-L). Having hit the edit button there, I see the statement Tony included in his indeff block is "Sole purpose to harass banned user, Jeff Merkey." From what I can see, the account was created or at least first used in March 2006 and the indeff placed in April 2006. I do see some edits which might not be directly related to the socker, at Talk:Joe Byrd (Cherokee chief) (T-H-L) and Piezoelectricity (T-H-L). I hate to say that, in a sense, the claim of the blocker that watching Merkey was the "sole purpose" of the account may not have been completely off base, but, at the same time, I can and do see that, maybe, your coming in for the generally reasonable purpose of preventing a loon from acting in the way he would be expected to was a good one, and that there might well have been a chance of your doing other things later which might not relate to the loon, who I assume is the Jeff V. Merkey (T-H-L) about whom the relevant AfD text has been hidden for "privacy reasons."

As I've said before, I'm not an admin anymore, and I rather doubt that my own word on its own would, necessarily, carry much weight. But I also can and do think that, maybe, particularly if you indicated you had an interest in editing material unrelated to the loon Merkey, I could at least request that the indeff be lifted, if you wanted. I have no idea what your other interests may really be, given the short history, but there is a lot of stuff that is still at a poor level that could use some work.

Merkey is living in a single wide trailer in New Mexico the last I heard, having finally lost his mind.
I will gleefully promise not to edit Merkey related articles on en.wp.

Good luck getting the Vigilant account unblocked.

I have to admit that I am less than familiar with how such processes are conducted, having never been actively involved in that area before so far as I remember. I think you would probably have to file the request yourself, and it might be possible that they might decide that it might be better if you come back under another name. Others have been asked to do the same. And like I said they might request that you change to some other name as per Wikipedia:Clean start (T-H-L).

But, at least so far as I can tell given the admittedly limited information I as a non-admin have, you might still be free, if you can remember the password at this point of course, to edit your user talk page to request the block be lifted. Alternately, it seems the accepted way to request a block be lifted would be to send an e-mail to Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System (T-H-L). As per Wikipedia:Blocking policy (T-H-L) and its "Blocking review" section, you have the right to request the block be lifted to allow discussion, and Tony Sidaway (T-C-L) seems as per his edit history to remain active and apparently able to lift it. I have the page on my watchlist now and would be willing to offer what support or assistance I might be able to. And, if nothing else, I think you could still go to my user page and send me an e-mail in which you could relay information to me for me to post.

My apologies for possibly promising more than I might personally be able to deliver, given what I now know was my own pretty obvious ignorance of the subject. But, if you want to make the request and think the best way to do so would be involving my input somehow, drop me a note or just edit your user talk page (which I should see appear on my watchlist) and I will.

Notvelty wrote:

Casliber wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Read my contributions and talk page.

make up your own damn mind.

I started to - looked like a bunch or argy-bargy. My time is limited and sleep deprivation make my attnetion span short. Hence pointers are helpful

So what you're saying is that you're quite happy to just believe the words of people who say something you're inclined to believe, but can't be stuffed checking out something that might contradict it.

You're an "academic", right?

Nope, just busy

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

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

That was a redirect that made it to .ch from .com, but the target article did not. Looking at the versions at Archive.org, it wouldn't be terribly hard to restore.

EricBarbour wrote: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.

Vigilant wrote:

EricBarbour wrote: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.

Deleted section of Jmerkey wrote:Jmerkey, intercock

Jmerkey is strongly suspected of being the Clicktard

Nothing of value was lost, it seems.

mac wrote:I restored it, and then removed the last section which was inserted somewhere between January 2008 and February 2008.
Nothing of value was lost, it seems.

Thankyou, Mac. (I think.)

C'mon, Vig, I bet you've got something to add to that.

EricBarbour wrote:

mac wrote:I restored it, and then removed the last section which was inserted somewhere between January 2008 and February 2008.
Nothing of value was lost, it seems.

Thankyou, Mac. (I think.)

So much is missing from that article.

Jeff's claims in no particular order:
* He mined rhodium in his backyard and smelted it in his kitchen
* He ran the Utah ACLU branch in his basement
* He was worth $350M
* Novell was afraid of him
* He was a war hero
* He had effectively three brains and an IQ of over 200
* He could inspect postings on Yahoo! message boards and tell where people were posting from
* He was going to revolutionize physics
* He was an American Indian, of any flavor. Cherohonkee!
* He wasn't a closeted gay man

On and on and on and on

When he went away, I stopped hitting him in the head.

Vigilant wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:

mac wrote:I restored it, and then removed the last section which was inserted somewhere between January 2008 and February 2008.
Nothing of value was lost, it seems.

Thankyou, Mac. (I think.)

So much is missing from that article.

Jeff's claims in no particular order:
* He mined rhodium in his backyard and smelted it in his kitchen
* He ran the Utah ACLU branch in his basement
* He was worth $350M
* Novell was afraid of him
* He was a war hero
* He had effectively three brains and an IQ of over 200
* He could inspect postings on Yahoo! message boards and tell where people were posting from
* He was going to revolutionize physics
* He was an American Indian, of any flavor. Cherohonkee!
* He wasn't a closeted gay man

On and on and on and on

When he went away, I stopped hitting him in the head.

I wouldn't worry about hitting over the head, under the circumstances. Based on the above, there doesn't seem to have been much of a chance of appreciable damage in it, considering the obvious "before" nature of his thinking.

Vigilant wrote:* He was worth $350M

* Novell was afraid of him

* He was a war hero

* He had effectively three brains and an IQ of over 200

When he went away, I stopped hitting him in the head.

It might have been good for him.

Vigilant wrote:So much is missing from that article.

Jeff's claims in no particular order:
* He mined rhodium in his backyard and smelted it in his kitchen
* He ran the Utah ACLU branch in his basement
* He was worth $350M
* Novell was afraid of him
* He was a war hero
* He had effectively three brains and an IQ of over 200
* He could inspect postings on Yahoo! message boards and tell where people were posting from
* He was going to revolutionize physics
* He was an American Indian, of any flavor. Cherohonkee!
* He wasn't a closeted gay man

On and on and on and on

When he went away, I stopped hitting him in the head.

IOW he's a mentally ill guy putting himself out there on the interwebs "asking" for abuse. I wonder what Kant would say about those sorts of people.

SB_Johnny wrote:

Vigilant wrote:So much is missing from that article.

Jeff's claims in no particular order:
* He mined rhodium in his backyard and smelted it in his kitchen
* He ran the Utah ACLU branch in his basement
* He was worth $350M
* Novell was afraid of him
* He was a war hero
* He had effectively three brains and an IQ of over 200
* He could inspect postings on Yahoo! message boards and tell where people were posting from
* He was going to revolutionize physics
* He was an American Indian, of any flavor. Cherohonkee!
* He wasn't a closeted gay man

On and on and on and on

When he went away, I stopped hitting him in the head.

IOW he's a mentally ill guy putting himself out there on the interwebs "asking" for abuse. I wonder what Kant would say about those sorts of people.

And serially abusing and attempting to cheat others.

If he was like ChrisChan, I'd have left him alone.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (T-H-L)

....and wasn´t there a chapter where he was "untouchable" on wp....as he had pledged $$$$$$$$$ to WMF?

The Adversary wrote:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (T-H-L)

....and wasn´t there a chapter where he was "untouchable" on wp....as he had pledged $$$$$$$$$ to WMF?

Oh yeah.
There were at least 5 arb style hangings and subsequent revivals of Jeff Merkey.

He claimed he gave $5000 to Jimbo. Jimbo waffled about what the money was for.
Nicholas Turnbull quit over it. The Mo:leman, I think, got his private phone number and convinced him to come back.
There were silly stories written.
Jeff thought it made him invulnerable and asked for the moon.

Good times ... good times.

Vigilant wrote:Good luck getting the Vigilant account unblocked.

Let me ask you two completely unrelated questions:

1. Suppose you actually submitted an unblock request, saying that you wanted to participate on Wikipedia again and that you would behave reasonably, albeit as a usually critical voice. Which present or (if he were still on the committee) former arbitrator do you think would be likely to give your request the most thoughtful and genuine consideration, as opposed to rejecting it out of hand?

2. Which present or former arbitrator have you given by far the most shit to on this website?

3. On the off chance that the Vigilant account was unblocked by an arbitrator/ex-arb, how long would it be before an angry mob at ANI reinstated the block along with a community ban?

Newyorkbrad wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Good luck getting the Vigilant account unblocked.

Let me ask you two completely unrelated questions:

1. Suppose you actually submitted an unblock request, saying that you wanted to participate on Wikipedia again and that you would behave reasonably, albeit as a usually critical voice. Which present or (if he were still on the committee) former arbitrator do you think would be likely to give your request the most thoughtful and genuine consideration, as opposed to rejecting it out of hand?

2. Which present or former arbitrator have you given by far the most shit to on this website?

These are really good questions, and although I think that there might be some undertext I stupidly ain't seeing I still think they merit consideration. I might add one other question myself. Vigilant, you seem from what little I've seen to in a lot of ways maybe share some characteristics and maybe interests with iii, who I admit I've disagreed with in the past, sometimes to my error, but who I consider maybe one of our best watchdogs on pseudoscience. If that is right, and you are interested in pseudoscience or pseudohistory or quackery subjects, it might be useful to indicate that, or, alternately, any other specific areas of content which might interest you.

Casliber wrote:

Notvelty wrote:

Casliber wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Read my contributions and talk page.

make up your own damn mind.

I started to - looked like a bunch or argy-bargy. My time is limited and sleep deprivation make my attnetion span short. Hence pointers are helpful

So what you're saying is that you're quite happy to just believe the words of people who say something you're inclined to believe, but can't be stuffed checking out something that might contradict it.

You're an "academic", right?

Nope, just busy

Will you also be travelling with limited internet access?

Newyorkbrad wrote:1. Suppose you actually submitted an unblock request, saying that you wanted to participate on Wikipedia again and that you would behave reasonably, albeit as a usually critical voice. Which present or (if he were still on the committee) former arbitrator do you think would be likely to give your request the most thoughtful and genuine consideration, as opposed to rejecting it out of hand?

2. Which present or former arbitrator have you given by far the most shit to on this website?

With all due respect Mr. Brad, we all know that the most reasonable voice is the least essential in an endeavor such as the one you describe. To get an un-ban on someone like Mr. Vigilant, you'd have to get buy-in from people who in the past have pretty much never bought into anything of the sort. If anything, by presenting the appearance of rationality and equanimity, you provide cover for the far more common grudge-bearers and revenge-grabbers - one might even say this is often the real reason for why you are criticized in venues like this.

I'm not alone in my willingness to believe your rationality and equanimity are held sincerely, but until everyone is as rational and forgiving as you, nothing like this is likely to happen.

Midsize Jake wrote:

Newyorkbrad wrote:1. Suppose you actually submitted an unblock request, saying that you wanted to participate on Wikipedia again and that you would behave reasonably, albeit as a usually critical voice. Which present or (if he were still on the committee) former arbitrator do you think would be likely to give your request the most thoughtful and genuine consideration, as opposed to rejecting it out of hand?

2. Which present or former arbitrator have you given by far the most shit to on this website?

With all due respect Mr. Brad, we all know that the most reasonable voice is the least essential in an endeavor such as the one you describe. To get an un-ban on someone like Mr. Vigilant, you'd have to get buy-in from people who in the past have pretty much never bought into anything of the sort. If anything, by presenting the appearance of rationality and equanimity, you provide cover for the far more common grudge-bearers and revenge-grabbers - one might even say this is often the real reason for why you are criticized in venues like this.

I'm not alone in my willingness to believe your rationality and equanimity are held sincerely, but until everyone is as rational and forgiving as you, nothing like this is likely to happen.

(a) I think you missed the irony.
(b) these things needn't be discussed with a peanut gallery

Notvelty wrote:

Casliber wrote:

Notvelty wrote:

Casliber wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Read my contributions and talk page.

make up your own damn mind.

I started to - looked like a bunch or argy-bargy. My time is limited and sleep deprivation make my attnetion span short. Hence pointers are helpful

So what you're saying is that you're quite happy to just believe the words of people who say something you're inclined to believe, but can't be stuffed checking out something that might contradict it.

You're an "academic", right?

Nope, just busy

Will you also be travelling with limited internet access?

very funny - though Australia is decades behind in its use of wifi etc.

Realistically, Vig has burned every bridge twice as far as getting back to Wikipedia as a Wikipedian goes. That's not his value to The Project anyway, I just don't see him writing content on mundane software topics or chiming in self-importantly at AfD.

I do believe in the power of enforcers (to use a hockey term) — or Bear Jews in caves clanking baseball bats, as the case may be. That's his value and the fact that he is still here instead of doing something different with his spare time proves to me at least that he his part of the "Wikipedia community" — broadly defined.

RfB

Randy from Boise wrote: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.

Casliber wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote: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.

Nobody, but nobody, scares the piss out of Wikipedians more from this site.

RfB

Casliber wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote: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.

Zoloft wrote:

Casliber wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote: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.

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


t