Vigilant!!!

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Vigilant!!!

Post by Abd » Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:55 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:59 am
You're nailing him good--this is actually too much detail.
I can move the detail to the blog and leave the juicy stuff here. What I'm doing is editing that post with the long list. It does not show up in activity. But, still, I think it would be better to move it and link.

Vigilant will attack any comments that are thorough and evidenced as "wall of text from a net.kook." What I've been doing with his Reddit attacks has clearly triggered him; it is effectively trolling the troll while avoiding collateral damage. I sense a level of desperation. But it's entirely of his own making. I wasn't going after him, I simply mentioned, as a response to a question, who WOVigilant was. Mild, compared to what he'd been spewing for years about me.
If the Vig cares to come over here and discuss it, I'll give him a special account. (But of course he won't. The coward.)
I would too. He is a classic troll. He is only posting on Reddit in places where (1) there is very weak moderation, and (2) he knows I'll see it, because he responds to my comments, creating a notification. His responses rarely have anything to do with the topic. His profile, the list of his posts, shows how obsessed he has become. WOVigilant. Yes, Vigilant is a coward. He bailed from that original discussion, or was banned, because he was being downvoted into oblivion. He bailed from our first interchange by terminating with harmless irrelevancies. He is totally wrong with some accusations -- misleading with others -- but never acknowledges it. Troll, and so . . . trolled in return, but with caution.

(In fact, a troll will knowingly repeat disproven allegations because the troll knows that most people will get angry over that and getting the target angry is the MO of a troll. Targets, angry, then make themselves look bad. I've seen it for many years.)
PS: I suspect that the Reddit user "anti_pope" might be David Gerard or another RationalWiki user. He rants and screams about fascism, when he isn't posting assorted crackpot ideas about science.
Ah, don't get me started about Gerard. Vicious asshole. I'll look.

(Post content removed to blog.)

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Vigilant!!!

Post by Abd » Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:04 pm

As to the user mentioned, nothing leapt out at me screaming "Gerard!!!" I replied to a comment, we'll see what happens. Under the same post:
I accidentally had raw chicken sushi outside Tokyo once. I was fairly concerned for my mortality.
That fear was about him, not about the chicken. The risk was extremely low. From Japanese health statistics, probably far more dangerous walking outside, some car might hit you.
Wikipedia, with typical conclusory text:
Torisashi is a Japanese dish of chicken cut into strips and only cooked long enough to sear the outer layer, leaving the inside pink.[1] There are many risks associated with consuming torisashi as the inside is left raw.[2]
This would be a similar issue as with steak tartare vs. raw ground beef. The interior is biologically clean, with healthy animals. Searing will kill exterior contamination. Source [2] is not about "consuming torisashi", but about eating "raw chicken." That was a passing mention, likely synthesized to make it support what the Wikipedia editor wanted to put in the article (I did not obtain the full journal article.)

Few will bother to check citations if they are not available on-line. Often not even then! On another topic, I found a journal citation that was suspicious, years old, went to a medical library to read the actual article, and the source actually contradicted what was supposedly verified by it. Nobody checks. Too much trouble and nobody is responsible. Source [1] clearly contradicts that there is substantial risk from Torisashi. In fact, it's worth reading for its own value.

Eating Torisashi in Japan: safe, for reasons explained in source [1]. Eating it here, certainly with store-bought chicken, would be much riskier. From a Japanese restaurant with a trained chef, probably just as safe as in Japan. But I've never seen it on a menu. Context matters, but people react to words and associations, unaware of context. An idea that one may get sick from eating something triggers reactions to "being sick" that make one averse. That is where the "disgusting" reactions come from.

That disgust is not natural, instinctive, it is learned. Like all likes and dislikes, it's a choice, not a reality about the object. It may or may not have a real basis in reality, as to relative risks.

I hated macaroni for years, and finally confronted it. When I was on the order of six or seven years old, I got sick after eating macaroni with cheese, throwing up, etc. So I hated macaroni with cheese! Disgusting!

Much later, I realized that the risk was very low and maybe I could try Mac and Cheese. It's actually delicious, and I reprogrammed myself to like it. We can do that! (I don't eat it any more, because high carb.)

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2083
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 90 times
Been thanked: 219 times

Re: Vigilant!!!

Post by ericbarbour » Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:43 am

Abd wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:04 pm
As to the user mentioned, nothing leapt out at me screaming "Gerard!!!" I replied to a comment, we'll see what happens.
I should note his occasional fascination with black metal and goth subjects. All we need is to find a few comments about homophobia and "alternative lifestyles", maybe something about Bitcoin or libertarianism, and it is settled: THAT has got to be Gerard. Completely predictable human being and longtime internet troll, despite his claims to be a "free spirit" or somesuch crap.

Brief lecture: one of the most incredibly STUPID things Wales ever did was to give Gerard early sysop and oversight powers. It ruined Wikipedia's culture all the way back in 2004. That is all.

Plus this one really cracks me up....maybe he was falling-down drunk at the time?
Screenshot_2020-01-24 anti_pope (u anti_pope) - Reddit.png
Screenshot_2020-01-24 anti_pope (u anti_pope) - Reddit.png (28.92 KiB) Viewed 817 times

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Vigilant!!!

Post by Abd » Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:29 pm

I'm not convinced, Eric. But I'll keep looking and of course, I will look at anything you post.

Meanwhile, watch Vigilant's head explode when he sees today's response (25 Jan 2020) to his continued trolling.

10:15:53
10:15:55
10:15:58

All these are the same comment:
Are we having fun yet?

I dunno. Compared to what? Ask me in ten years. Popcorn, anyone?

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Vigilant!!!

Post by Abd » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:42 pm

Vigilant is now openly collaborating with the Smith brothers, see his comment on an r/internet drama subreddit. Smith pinged him in the post, but not me. I found it by looking at u/WOVigilant. That display shows that, while the account was created in 2014, his entire comment record since Dec 30 has been about me, over 80 comments.

Smith also "defended" Vigilant in comments on Reddit/WOVigilant.

Snakes of a scale shake together.

Some months back, a Smith sock tried to recruit Vigilant to his cause and Vigilant threatened him (as Oliver and Darryl) with severe consequences. It's not in WOV's post record now. I recall mentioning it somewhere, and so he deleted it, because they are now allies.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Vigilant!!!

Post by Dysklyver » Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:07 pm

Any connection between Smith et al and Vigilant is likely to be informal, on the basis of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. It appears to be entirely opportunistic, and Smith et al never often made friends or allies, and certainly never held any alliances that were made for long periods of time.
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal. find me on the Wiki Treehouse Discord.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Vigilant!!!

Post by Abd » Fri Jan 31, 2020 9:06 pm

Agreed. But what is remarkable here is Vigilant -- who does have a reputation to maintain -- joining forces with and clearly allied with the Smiths, the most disruptive set of attack trolls I've ever seen. The Smiths don't care, because if they look bad, they just retire the account (RatWiki) or delete it (Reddit). And if the new account is recognized, they claim that "there is no proof," even if it is bloody effing obvious.

When Vigilant went on the attack against me, he displayed in full public all the obsession of a lolcow, driven beyond any sane reserve by his obsessions.

I.e., I successfully trolled him. If I say so myself.

Others may agree or disagree, and a troll has no right to claim victory. Claiming to have won a dialog is troll behavior, actually, normally intended to create more reaction.

What became very clear is Vigilant's isolation from reality. It didn't matter if it made any sense or not, if it looked like mud or shit, he picked it up and threw it. And I simply record and tag it and that drives him crazy.

My trolling was writing conclusory statements about him, interpreting and judging. I.e., what he does constantly.

Like my calling him "evil," or mentioning the archetype of Satan.

He has tried most of the standard troll tricks. If you ignore a troll, they will call you a coward, afraid to face the truth. They will do almost anything to arouse an emotionally-involved response. They will deliberately lie, lies that can be disproven, because they will think you will be compelled to point out the truth.

Every fact about your life that might look bad, they will assert, interpreting it with maximum contempt. They will poke and probe until they find a weak point, where you may feel you must defend yourself. DNFTT is sound practice, as a policy, but really, the failure is in communities that allow trolling and do not defend people from it. Because anyone can be triggered.

I certainly can be, but I've learned to notice the reaction and slow down. Sit on it overnight. Look for inspiration, not self-defense. Time will wound all heels.

Basic: Meatball:DefendEachOther.

That's what I did on en.wiki and later on Wikiversity, I defended others. And I was attacked for it, and, too often, not defended.

That is why I gave up on WMF wikis (before being banned). The last editing to Wikiversity and meta was dealing with an attack on a user and on Wikiversity, through impersonation socking. By Darryl L. Smith. And the rest is history.

I am proud of it.

Reality will decide any question.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Vigilant!!!

Post by Abd » Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:54 pm

On WPO, Eric Corbett wrote, to Vigilant:
What I expect is that one day, perhaps quite soon, you'll be revealed as the duplicitous bottom feeder you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be, "to thunderous applause".
Vigilant's response was to refer to his 2013 defamation of Corbett as Malleus, a very notable Wikipedian who was an internal critic, to express extreme contempt in many ways, including calling him a "gnoming snot" .

So, this Abd fellow actually confronts Vigilant (as WPO Vigilant on Reddit) and trolls him into demonstrating beyond doubt that Vigilant is a "duplicitous" troll and hater, and where is that "thunderous applause"? The fact is that all I did at this point was to serve as a sniper decoy, to attract identifying fire. That is what a troll can do. To expose those who might otherwise successfully hide in the data fuse. And I have yet to create an analysis to complete this task.

Will I bother? Who wants to see it?

There is now a body of material in one place, publicly accessible in the Reddit profile of WOVigilant. That was all voluntarily posted by him, as attack, as a troll, inviting comment -- as trolls do, knowing that most trolled will defend themselves, making themselves look bad to many audiences. I responded to almost every comment with a link to my blog. And after answering in detail almost 80 such comments, I then replaced it with a generic Reply. This clearly frustrated him. Obviously Abd is a net.kook, because he is not defending himself like a Normal Person. And, of course, he describes me with many of his favorite terms, on Reddit and Wikipediocracy. "Butthurt." and, now, yesterday, he commented "This is the stance of a pedophile."

Classic Vigilant, accusing people on thin or misleading evidence of being pedophiles or pedophile apologists or defenders. Pointing that out is actually what got me banned without warning from Wikipediocracy in 2014. He was lying or terminally careless. What he quoted is not the stance of a pedophile, at all.

This is the reality as I see it: A pedophile or pedophile defender might present facts A and interpretations B.

I presented facts A, true, but explicitly denied the interpretations. But trolls know that when most people see "pedophile," their brain turns to boiling mush. In other words, Vigilant attacked the presentation of fact -- which would normally be called "telling the truth" -- by associating them with highly unpopular interpretations that I also rejected.


"[moral standard] is culturally dependent" is not an argument for changing the standard, at all. But people forget that, easily. It is merely a recognition of fact, which one can find by actually reading the article on Wikipedia that was cited. So is Wikipedia promoting the "stance of a pedophile"? Vigilant might say, "Fuck yes, those pedos!"

But facts are facts. Vigilant cherry-picks facts, extrapolates from them and turns them into shit to toss. He's a troll, pure and simple, and he's tolerated on Wikipediocracy for the entertainment value.

Eric Corbett, where are you? I'm not going to burn my WPO access by pinging him myself, and I don't use WMF access because that would be a TOS violation, and I don't do that either. Does Eric have an account here?

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2083
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 90 times
Been thanked: 219 times

Re: Vigilant!!!

Post by ericbarbour » Sat Feb 01, 2020 9:13 pm

Abd wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:54 pm
Eric Corbett, where are you? I'm not going to burn my WPO access by pinging him myself, and I don't use WMF access because that would be a TOS violation, and I don't do that either. Does Eric have an account here?
I'll ask him but don't hold your breath. Tried to get Corbett here before, and the WPOites talked him out of it....

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Vigilant!!!

Post by Abd » Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:52 pm

Thanks to Vigilant for the incoming link.

It is unclear that Corbett has read the above, but it was almost immediately mentioned on WPO that I had been "putting up the bat light for Eric Corbett to join" me I.e, to help out with what he claimed to hope for, exposing Vigilant for what he so obviously is. Many 'pediots follow Sucks closely, in spite of all the derision. Corbett's response:
Me join Sucks? That'll be a cold day in hell.
Years ago in the Wikipedia Review days I pointed out that Wikipedia was highly vulnerable to organized factions. I created a mailing list to promote site neutrality. Anyone could have created one if they didn't like my proposal because of me. Nobody did anything and nothing happened. What one person can do alone is limited. What two can do is far more, and among other things, they may attract a third, and the whole planet has been changed from movements that started like that.

And so Corbett is responsible for the constant attacks on him by Vigilant. He could do something about it, but won't, because . . .
Because why?

I'll say this much: Eric Corbett:
Real name account, apparently, which earns a level of respect. Former username was Malleus Faturorum, and he was sometimes considered unblockable, because he had so many supporters, valuable content creator. The block log, however, is quite long, but the last block had been in 2015.

He was accused of violating a topic ban, and his response might as well have put on a "Block me, assholes" T-shirt.

He registered in 2007 and his first talk page edit demonstrates he did not yet know how to sign edits. I did the same thing, in 2005.

So he wasn't truly an early 'pedian, but by the time of his indef had over 12 years' experience, with 145,000 global edits as Malleus and nearly 46,000 as Corbett. The Malleus block log. From the comments of many, he was a fabulous article creator and editor.

His farewll edit.

Was he the target of a successful vendetta to ban him? Or had he failed to adapt to a changing Wikipedia? I know which of these stories is empowering, but these are really questions for him. A bit earlier, he'd written:
Just the way this place works. You either suck it up or you leave, that's the Wiki-way. Sucking it up has never been my style though.
There is an obvious third way that he missed, though it could be said that it is what he actually did.

He apparently demonstrated wiki addiction. He was unable to stay away. He was in a trap that he had constructed. Scrambling the password is the act of someone desperate, attempting to "bind the future," I call it. Bad Idea. I have not looked to see what he has written about all this on WPO. There are far better ways, though, to create our future.

It may have made no difference. However, scrambling the password is like banning yourself. Much cleaner to do what one chooses, and let the others do what they choose. And, yes, he has the right to scramble and the basic right to edit contrary to policy. And admins have the right to block him. We are responsible for what we do and don't do. That's my stand.

And he remains welcome on Sucks, as far as I'm concerned.

Post Reply