Page 1 of 1

What is Vigilant?

Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:19 pm
by CrowsNest
I'm sure Vigilant user to be a Wikipedia critic, but maybe I misremembered. Since his return from the wilderness, an absence he has never explained that I've seen, the answer to the question, what is he, has only gotten worse.

He is a coward. He stopped responding to me weeks ago. Come at me bro, he infamously said. I have, countless times now. Clearly, he can't defend his work, and he can't defend himself. He's happy to hide over at Wikipediocracy, living under Uncle Jake's skirts. This cowardice runs right through everything he does there.

He is a bully. Despite knowing what Kumioko was for ages, as soon as it became clear his presence on Wikipediocracy was going to cloud his intended message, he suddenly realized this was a bad thing, and issued the necessary threats to make him go away. His targeting of Eric Corbett can only have its origins in a clash of egos, rather than the reason I have so often used him as a symbol. I have seen enough to know that while I would have basically nothing in common with that vile little runt, philosophically speaking, there is actually much common ground between Eric Corbett and Vigilant, who seems to only want to abuse him just for the reaction. Their encounters resemble slap fests of the highest order, for no other reason than what happens when you put two bullies in the same room.

He's a hypocrite. It's become comical, his ability to see certain flaws in those who he wants to target as part of his supposed Wikipedia criticisms, while ignoring them in those he either can't be bothered to investigate, or worse, due to the compromised loyalties of Wikipediocracy, would not be allowed to investigate, chiefly because they abound in the Wikipedian members they protect and respect.

He's a traitor. It's surely an eye opener to anyone who comes to Wikipedia criticism for the right reasons, to see Vigilant possessing only a concern for what upsets and harms the Wikipedia veterans. Not people who have pure motives and good intentions, but the people who have shaped Wikipedia into the horrific place it has become, with the attendant damage to the wider world. That's nothing when compared to the way he is positively giddy at the thought the WMF might succeed in countering a lawsuit that could cause a death blow to the very underpinnings of the Wikipedia movement, and has already secured the noble victory of revealing you can be banned for any reason, including no reason at all, this isn't just theoretical legalese, it's an actual tool they intend to use to maintain their reality, while spreading the myth to the world that editing Wikipedia is some kind of fundamental human right.

He's unprincipled. So, sure, it's a free world, there's nothing that says all Wikipedia critics have to believe the same things. Even his enthusiastic support for the WMF's expensive lawyers could be excused I guess, iff he had some principled reason to be holding that view. Alas, no. He was bizarrely proud of the fact he takes these positions solely based on who loses, a furtherance of personal grudges. The enemy of my enemy, and all that.

He's a kiss-ass. It's enough to be an unprincipled traitor, but really, to have gone so far down that path to allow yourself to be seen literally kissing the asses of the scumbag Wikipedia Administrators that the Wikipediocracy leadership have courted and protected, it's beyond the pale. Indefensible.

He's a liability. Even in the environs of this safe harbour, I've still found myself having to make sure I correctly attribute some of the more explosive charges Vigilant has been laying down over on Wikipediocracy, they really are that dangerous. It's a mark of his cowardice that it's obvious he is only doing this in the knowledge the WMF will never sue because they wouldn't want to give Wikipediocracy the free publicity.

He's a fraud. There is no other word to describe someone who has the gall to state truth is an absolute defence, but is so absolutely allergic to a basic concept like proving your claims. He hasn't even got the good sense to demarcate what he knows for a fact, and what he merely believes is a robust interpretation of an incomplete picture. No surprise he attracts the assistance of someone like Jbhunley on Wikipedia, whose gut feeling for what he just knows for sure, and maybe might go find the evidence for later, is becoming legendary. Is Jbhunley just a local sales agent for the snake oil, or does he genuinely believe the labelling? Who cares. The villain is the organ grinder, not his monkeys.

He's vile. I don think it gets worse than the sight of Vigilant positively relishing the thought the women he is targeting so hard, might literally be experiencing physical symptoms because of it, obsessively refreshing to see what else he has truffled up. Sick. Naturally this work cannot be done without the realisation it necessarily has to have some kind of effect, given we necessarily have to enter the realm of personal qualities, and we cannot control if that effect is the worst possible. But to be seen wishing it, relishing it even, as if it were the goal? And when it is so obvious there is little reason for it, given the end product is not so much truffles as turds. No. That's beyond sick. It reveals a darkness of the soul that probably no therapy can fix.

He's a stalker. He'll find you, as he has threatened, repeatedly. Now, let's have it right, this forum hardly takes the view it is always wrong to identify bad actors, and to hope the knowledge they can and probably will be identified, as a means to curb their worst excesses (an often futile hope, but legitimate nonetheless). But we have a policy here, to ensure that is done for the right reasons. But given how little it seems to require for Vigilant to embark on a truffle hunt, targeting people only weekly implicated for this special attention, rather suggests he simply enjoys it as an exercise in of itself. Combined with the vile way he expresses his pleasure at causing distress in those he is targeting, and the love of posting pictures of women targets and all the horrible speculation and commentary, well, it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

He's a bullshitter. I've watched with increasing incredulity as he has set forth with bold accusations and wide ranging claims, only to see him ask much later, who is X, Y or Z, what is A, B or C? As any serious critic knows, X, Y and A are bad actors you would just be aware of, and A, B and C are things you would already know of, as a matter of course, if you were properly investigating the things and people behind these claims.

He's a conspiracy theorist. It's bad enough to be a bullshitter, revealing as it does a likelihood there is little or no process or ethics influencing what he does. But it's clear Vigilant's reliance on bullshit speaks to something far worse. He is clearly someone who wants to advance a conspiracy theory to achieve his aim, and whether it stands up is neither here nor there. All the hallmarks of classic tin-foil hattery exist in his methods and postings. His target audience clearly aren't an inquisitive public or the skeptical journalist, it seems obvious his intended audience are those gullible fools inside the cult, the people who want to believe. His evident lack of motive or end goal, at least not one that makes sense or aligns with any critic strategy I ever heard of, only supports the suspicion he's just one of these whackadoodles for whom spreading whackadoodellery is the means and the goal.

He's a whiny little bitch. Oh how I've laughed when the denizens of Wikipediocracy have sometimes dared to claim I am motivated by nothing more high minded than revenge, usually right after I've just torn apart one of their latest efforts. A tough charge to prove, given they still don't really know if I ever have even edited Wikipedia. I let them fumble for my own amusement, because I don't need a backstory, my critical credentials are established, recognized across the critic space. My work speaks for itself, the cowardice of my critics even more so. But we do know Vigilant's back story, and I laughed when he basically admitted that whatever else is driving him, he is ultimately out for revenge. He's got a dolly, and he knows where the WMF touched him.

He's an ungrateful bastard. I've written extensively about the circumstances under which I was banned from Wikipediocracy. I was harsh, but I followed their rules, meticulously adhering to the mission. If Vigilant was as smart as he claims he is, he would recognize he owes me a debt of thanks. If it wasn't for the way I utterly torpedoed the fraud of Wikipediocracy's attempt to rebrand as a big tent with some form of civil code, forcing them to ban me for no other reason than I upset the scummy Wikipedians who call it home, he wouldn't have found it so easy to slide back in. I made them realize that because of who runs that site, the way it is moderated and it's overall vision, it was never going to be run as anything more than a flattering imitation of the sick way the Wikipedia community self-regulates. It is the only environment a person like Vigilant can thrive. Me, I can adapt to my surroundings, if there is a reason to do so.

He's a joke. Seriously, some of the shit he has said recently, is just laughable. This idea he doesn't have time to write a blog post detailing the conspiracy theory he has promulgated all over that forum because he's too busy at work, is the most hilarious. He genuinely thinks other people who could be valued colleagues, are that stupid. The reasons why he doesn't want to write it, are obvious, as I've detailed. I don't see any denial. Forget all the other shit, as bad as it is, the simple act of even daring to say something so ridiculous people just laugh, that's a sure fire way to lose any credibility you ever thought you had.

As pointless as it is even asking, I happily invite rebuttals, either from the man himself, the people who offer him protection and a platform, and indeed those who think there is anything left of this faded force of a man to admire, something to quote for reasons other than condemnation or sheer mockery.

I'll be here.

I mean, to be clear, I'm settled in my view. It's been too long. I've offered too many chances. There is no more hope with me that he can be reformed, no more suspicion this was all just a temporary blip, some bad reaction to medication, that he'd self-correct eventually.

There is nothing to salvage here. No honour. No integrity. Nothing to utilize, emulate or follow.

Arguably he has destroyed his legacy so thoroughly, he has forfeited the right to be remembered as a critic at all.

I disavow.

Re: What is Vigilant?

Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:32 pm
by ericbarbour
Ha ha ha. All true to some extent.

CrowsNest wrote:It's surely an eye opener to anyone who comes to Wikipedia criticism for the right reasons, to see Vigilant possessing only a concern for what upsets and harms the Wikipedia veterans.

This should not surprise you. He was always about shutting down other critics, because HE wants to do it all HIMSELF. He honestly thinks he can "control" Wikipedia's internal culture by pissing at them on a forum. Doesn't even offer PROOF for his criticisms, just pisses like a little boy.

If you ever need handy proof of Vig's damaged little ego, remember that Trump thread in Off-Topic that caused him to rage-quit WO for some months. Bloody hypocrite.

Re: What is Vigilant?

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:56 pm
by CrowsNest
Eeeuurggghhhh. ... 534#p12534

Make him whole again?


I just wanna.....vomit.

Re: What is Vigilant?

Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:27 pm
by Graaf Statler
Paddo Vig wrote:Jehochman is already advising ARBCOM to delete the dossier.

I doubt there's anything in the 'dossier' that we didn't uncover here.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: What is Vigilant?

Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:25 pm
by CrowsNest
He's a Kumioko in training.......
The problem with WikiNews is that it's easily compromised with a very small cadre of shitheels.
On wow, so cryptic, who could he possibly mean?

Just dropped that turd in a thread that has fuck all to do with Laura Hale. Unless we can add Russian propagandist to her rap sheet.

*waits while Vigilant raises and finally lowers his eye-brow*

Vigilant of course hadn't even taken five seconds to appreciate the topic in question. If he had, he might have actually had something more useful to say (it takes only a minute to realize this is a potentially explosive issue for the WMF, far more likely to capture the media's attention than his Framban horseshit).

This is Kumioko's m.o. all over. Fly-by crap-dumping, shitting up random threads, just me me me.

Vigilant is the dreaded SHITPOSTER. :lol:

I know I say it a lot, but this time I really am genuinely embarrassed for him.

Re: 10920

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:50 am
by Anyone
CrowsNest wrote:I write the stuff that makes mighty Vigilant say this.....
I don’t check there anymore.It’s just too nutty.

Obvious BS.

Viggie Babes spent hours and hours directing his hatred and self-loathing at Hale.

Obviously he had enough material to compose a blog post.


He then trashed Eric Corbett. He claimed to be a better writer.

So obviously the blog post was an opportunity to put his Hale-oriented sources together and compose an article that confirms his status as Corbett's superior.


But because this is the internet ....... he ran away. Like a pussy. Claimed he was too busy.


And now he claims not to read Sucks.


Why am I not surprised?

Re: 10920

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:54 am
by JuiceBeetle
Anyone wrote:So obviously the blog post was an opportunity to put his [Vig's] Hale-oriented sources together and compose an article that confirms his status as Corbett's superior.

Half of the "references" was normal/everyday stuff very weakly supporting his arguments. It's quantity, not quality.

Re: What is Vigilant?

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:27 pm
by Abd
I was not following Sucks at the point when this thread was started. Personally, I agree with much of what Crow wrote here, starting this thread. Crow is not participating here because he defied site moderation, directly and clearly, (same as Graaf), and that is an error fatal to participation, if site admin has any courage. Vigilant is loved on Wikipediocracy because the 'pediots love flame wars, which are lame wars with the F added.

So perhaps readership is down, I don't know. But the price of troll-loving readership is too high. The site motto is "Wikipedia Sucks! (And So Do It's Critics.) So maybe we all suck, but I prefer Documentation to Drama.

Re: What is Vigilant?

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:50 am
by JuiceBeetle
Vigilant vs Eric ... 06#p257938
Vigilant wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 7:48 pm
Eric Corbett wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 7:36 pm
Vigilant wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 7:15 pm
That entire workshop is just ass.
I felt my brain cells losing the will to live as I tried to read through it.
You have brain cells?

Vewy good, Ewic!
Supar try!
Middle school grade insult, at least, for sure this time!

Go back to your pints, you steaming tosspot.
Need no comment.

Re: What is Vigilant?

Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:29 am
by Carrite
I think the theory that he is Satanic has the most merit.

Thread 3.