Wikipedia won't even ban EEng from noticeboards

[ChaosMeRee]

I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to visit me here in my holding cell, and to show my good faith I've modified my post per your suggestion. But let me explain a little. I'm a technical person myself, and many were the years during which my technical prowess put me in a position where the quality of people's lives was very much in my hands. And one thing I always despised was a high-handed attitude, on the part of some of my technical colleagues, toward people not as in-the-know as they were. And that's the attitude I detected in that discussion when those two presumed to inform me (a computer scientist and systems engineer for 45 years) and David Eppstein (a professor of computer science) that the flooding of our watchlists was somehow our fault, because we'd overridden the option to hid bots edits -- like we didn't know what we were doing or something. That fact is, they don't know what they were doing, because if they did they'd have realized they need to run that bot task in some different way to avoid much annoyance to many people. So I blew my stack a bit. To be honest I thought better of it just after hitting <Publish changes>, but just then the dog vomited on the rug so my priorities suddenly shifted. EEng 00:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Jesus wept.

In other words, he sees it in others, he just doesn't see it in himself.

By the sounds of it, even his dog is sick of living with this bullshit.

How ironic that If you actually go and look at the specific debate with the "script kiddies".....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... ts,_please

...... it becomes pretty clear that their crime of not appreciating EEng might intentionally have bot edits made visible by default, compared quite poorly with what he had done to them. Going to them with a complaint about their bot's speed, without having first established any of the pertinent facts, such as what the bot is for, how important/urgent it is, and thus which of the many speed related parts of the bot policy might be of use to EEng in his desire for a more socially acceptable speed.

No, he just made a vague and ill-informed request that was borderline ridiculous in context, a bot task that while not urgent, will involve four million edits. By his logic, the script kiddies then had every right to unload on his disrespectful ass. But they were actually quite sweet. If a little autistic. Kids today.

This is the problem with being a high handed asshat. You often forget the golden rule. Always make sure you know what you are talking about. That way you can at least shit on the heads of those lower down the food chain with confidence you at least know your facts. EEng not only didn't know he didn't even care. Literal arrogance.

The defenders are finally emerging, sensing the only option available is to accept 72 hours to avoid indefinite. Their arguments are the usual nonsense.

....EEng speaks and writes in honest language, a rare treat on Wikipedia, and asking for full conformity to robothood seems to be more an urge to tame than to let wild things run free. Each person has their own personality (it's literally in the word), and it's from that personality that a volunteer spirit emerges that blends well with the concept and creation of Wikipedia.....

Holy crap, now my dog just vomited.

What a bunch of hippy horseshit.

Although I do think EEng was being totally honest when he used his edit count and talk page edits as a measuring stick. You spend that many hours alone in a room with only a dog and a PC for company, you're gonna look for self worth anywhere you can get it.

Hey, I wonder if his dog was sick because it's being mistreated? You can see how Wikipedia addiction and generally thinking you're hot shit, would interfere with the necessary walks and visits to the pet food store.

[Bbb23sucks]

I always figure that if I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job. I stand by my comments, obviously

Yet that doesn't apply to Koavf?? I guess you can only be unblockable if you're edits consist of pointless drama and not actual content creation.

[ChaosMeRee]

The silliness is in full flow now, as befits the jester. Let's call it Operation Chaff.

I've now tried, on three occasions, to parse your original comment. As best I can follow the train of thought, EEng's supporters should be pushing for EEng to be indefinitely blocked so he can be unblocked. I entirely fail to see the logic, and have no compunction about saying so. Any comments about my reading comprehension are misguided at best, I have records of all my reading assessments from a very young age and I'm definitively not on the illiterate side of the bell curve. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

But what you also are, is an Administrator whose sole contribution to this section was to pick a fight with someone who wants the block upgraded to indefinite (while explicitly choosing not to have an opinion on the matter at hand, EEng's block). Yes, the comment is clearly a failed attempt at some kind of off colour humour, perhaps sarcasm or satire. But rather than get involved, why didn't you do what policy advises and just let it lie? It is bizarre, but it is not insulting or even all that rude when compared to what some people think warrants merely a short term block. Better yet, just appreciate the irony of a thread about EEng featuring a comment that most people didn't even understand, wasn't remotely helpful, but was probably deeply amusing to a handful of deeply invested participants. You cunt.

Put down the pitchforks and take a deep breath. So much for EEng being an unblockable. This thread quickly devolved into a mob out for blood. The 72-hour block was reasonable. Let EEng serve out the block and then go back to being a productive editor. When he messes up again, give him another short block. We do not need to be indeffing valuable contributors for occasionally stepping out of line. As for the suggestion that EEng gets away with comments that would get a new editor blocked, please note this snide personal jab from ASmallMapleLeaf, who is a very new editor, at the beginning of this thread. Nobody seems to care about that. I guess it's okay for a new editor to be uncivil as long as they are attacking one of the so-called unblockables. How about if everyone calms down and quits trying to run off a net-positive editor who has already been punished? This sort of mob mentality has no place on Wikipedia. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

On dear. Your were so close. So close! An almost perfect exposition of the theory. Then you had to show everyone that you're no genius, you're just a dirty little enabler. Nobody cares about the comment by the newbie because it isn't remotely a snide personal jab. It is at best, a sarcastic comment on EEng's lack of civility. As in, he's not a very nice person. Inarguably true, even if you want to argue it is only occasionally true and that shouldn't concern people because net positive. You have to try really really hard to interpret that as an attack on his personhood rather than his behaviour. You have to be a complete cunt to be claiming it is a level of rudeness that is comparable to outright denigration like "fucking geniuses" and pulling out your edit counter to measure penis lengths. Or that ironically it shouldn't be relevant that EEng has 94,927 more edits than said n00b. Who also has 713,937 edits less than you for that matter. Thank Christ you're not an Administrator, but I honestly wouldn't have been remotely surprised if you were.

While I understand your discomfort with the imagery, I do believe it is appropriate to regard the above as a mob. And this bothers me because I have seen what wikimobs are capable of. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it makes sense that I am more alarmed by this than you are. You are one of our most popular admins, and it is unlikely that the community will ever turn on you like this. I, on the other hand, am a gnome who mostly keeps to myself. The type of editing I do does not necessitate cultivating Wiki-friendships, and I doubt if anyone here would notice or care if I simply disappeared one day. The only people who might feel any emotion in regard to me are the ones who might be hanging onto a grudge over all an old dispute; I've expressed strong opinions on Wiki matters enough times that I've probably acquired a few enemies over the years. While I try to avoid running afoul of WP:CIVIL, if I were ever to slip up and find myself the subject of a thread here, it is quite possible that some old enemies would show up to get their pound of flesh. And who would speak for me? Probably nobody. I think that's a sufficiently good reason for me to speak up when I see a mob forming against someone else. Everyone keeps saying that EEng's friends will turn up to get him out of this block, and maybe that's why so many editors have cast their lot against him. But so far almost nobody is speaking for him, and I think someone with his record of service deserves a little more dignity than this. Pardon my ramblings, but hopefully now you can understand why I take this so seriously. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You will eventually be banned because referring to a group of people making the very reasonable point that a 72 your block was more than warranted here and it is well as the point an indefinite block was considered, as a "mob" wielding "pitchforks", is a very very clear violation of civility. To the point that you saying "I try to avoid running afoul of WP:CIVIL" in the same post , is absurd. This is probably why nobody would turn up to defend a gnome who has been an editor for 7 years, should anyone bother to report them.

Do not look for conspiracies or violent fantasies when the simplest explanation fits the facts. EEng's friends have been reluctant to turn up to offer their usual assistance this time, because they can surely see quite well that EEng isn't being a good friend to them by being his usual witty self where his non-confirmity is clever and Indeed amusing to them, if nobody else. Which is of course why it amuses them. It is now just intemperate abuse, freely flowing because the boy genius got angry, and due to the long history of indulgence he doesn't have that fear of consequences that other, normal, Wikipedia editors have. And once it had happened, he hasn't apologised and reflected, only partly offering an explanation (his dog puked in his rug!). He has merely tried to half heartedly be his non-conformist jester persona. Which is sadly not entertaining enough to defend.

The only humour to be found is Johnuniq correctly suggesting it is a form of disability that Wikipedia should be protecting for the sake of diversity. Wow. Clearly Johnuniq doesn't mind people thinking he is the insane one here. The rest are nowhere to be seen because EEng isn't putting sufficient thought into how ridiculous it makes people look to be turning up time and again to argue a grown ass man should be allowed to be a complete child now and again because he is a genius. Fuck that. I would never let that pass my lips once, never mind multiple times. Not least because EEng clearly isn't a genius. He clearly isn't even a competent computer scientist, otherwise he would have established the relevant facts before making requests of the bot operators.

Nothing further needed Wikipedia is supposed to favor inclusivity yet struggles to cope with the fact that EEng occasionally expresses himself forcefully. If contributors are unable to cope with that, short blocks can be used. Jumping to indef in a situation like this is totally inappropriate. It would better if people were to focus on the underlying issue (mass adjustment of article talk page headers) but ANI is not the right place for that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Lolwut?

You're seriously claiming incivility is now a protected characteristic? Like a learning disability. Well........spastic is as spastic does

The bot task already has full approval, and this was already mentioned in the thread. Is your disability blindness, you utter cunt? Sorry, you utter Administrator cunt.

[ChaosMeRee]

EEng is either getting desperate or confident.

He is c!aiming it is quite false to say he has been blocked multiple times for incivility and his freinds have always come to his rescue. He claims he is usually incorrectly blocked by an over-zealous Admin objecting to criticism of their own conduct, and thus the blocks are overturned for correct reasons. This is what he meant when he said he wouldn't be "doing his job".

Well, as you might expect, the truth is quite different.

Take this February 2021 unblock by Tony Ballioni, sparing EEng a week on the sidelines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ol ... to_unblock

Look how it took only just over two hours for the block to be overturned. What was the rush?

Look at how the only issues discussed are procedural, or are patently matters of subjectivity, essentially attempts to supplant what other Administrators would have done over what Beland actually did, rather than argue what Beland did was wrong in either matters of fact or in a procedural way that would be significant.

It was said Beland should not block someone he had just warned. It is even stated as fact this is a breach of INVOLVED. That is of course horseshit, and incredibly hilarious to see in a debate where so many were claiming it is Beland who doesn't know policy. Beland was not involved in the dispute he was warning EEng about, and rather obviously an Administrator has every right to block a user they just warned if it is justified. It happens frequently.

Crucially, nobody explains with respect to actual policy or indeed basic fucking common sense, why no other Administrator felt it appropriate to block EEng when he responded the way he did. Why? Because the participants are all entirely against the very idea EEng can or should ever be blocked for anything. Least of all being an asshat in the face of authority. That is Is "job"!???!? Lol

Is Beland unreasonable in what he says here.....

If someone then responds to an admonition not to engage in certain behavior by repeating that behavior on the spot, I'm not sure what other appropriate responses the community can take.

None of the reviewers directly addresses this point, they just ignore it. No surprise. "Do nothing, it's just EEng being EEng" would expose what they were all trying to achieve with this nonsense.

Not following up on warnings and not backing your colleagues is widely understood as a key way that UNBLOCKABLES thrive. Downplaying or excusing evident offences does the rest.

If all else fails, just come out and admit what is plain and obvious...

.....All of those examples look relatively polite for EEng. ..... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Special rules for a special boy.

There is actually a heck of a lot of tough talk about how Beland is out of touch, inexperienced or even blatantly violating policy in a malicious way. Nothing comes of it of course, because it is complete bullshit. It says a lot that in an era when underperforming Admins are frequently being stripped of their rights by ArbCom, Beland is not subjected to a Case as a result of his supposedly poor block here.

This is another way UNBLOCKABLES thrive. Their piece of shit defenders make a lot of noise about the supposedly really quite obvious abuses and corruption of Administrators who would seek to restrain their favoured users. But it is all just noise. Only for intimidation.

There is absolutely no part of that discussion which acknowledges let alone respects the fact that Administrators have discretion to block for subjective things like civility, and it is fully compliant with the block policy's intent to be preventative not punitive to block people for stale violations of there is a reasonable belief they will continue and prior warnings and shorter blocks are having no effect.

Again, Beland fully explained themselves....

The sort of incivility that EEng has demonstrated is intermittent, so it is my hope both that we'd be spared another week of potential personal attacks on other editors, even if none might have happened during that time or in the previous two days. ...... This editor was blocked for a day or two for personal attacks before, and I guess not changed their behavior, so escalating block length was I thought a typical practice. Would this block have been appropriate if started two days ago? I wasn't pinged in EEng's reply, and I wasn't particularly quickly seeking out their reply because I was not looking forward to reading it, but if this happens again, if I reply quickly, is a block justified or would there be another reason not to?

....but he is of course completely ignored. Even by Tony, the person directly claiming that this delay represents a breach of policy.

Expecting enforcement of civility to be instant and if not the offender gets away Scot free, is of course perhaps the most blatant way of all that UNBLOCKABLES game the system. It is for that reason that you won't find it in the blocking policy. It is not punishment, it is common fucking sense.

This is all a long and roundabout way of pointing out what is blindingly obvious from this one supposedly poor block and thus presumably all the otherxe claimed to be wrong......

EEng was blocked for being needlessly combative, insulting and inflammatory in how he approached an INCREDIBLY TRIVIAL content dispute, an Administrator saw it and acted appropriately and in line with policy, other Administrators and EEng's friends rallied to his defence, talked a whole lot of bullshit and supplanted their own views of what is civil over the blocker, and thus a way was found to unblock EEng in rapid quick time.

Beland is clearly a nice guy and a wise Administrator.....

Perhaps a year or two ago I learned that Wikipedia is having editor retention problems, and that women have specifically reported quitting because they don't like arguing with rude and sharp-elbowed people whenever they have a concern about something. The best way I can think of to solve that problem is for uninvolved editors to speak up more often and admonish uncivil behavior. Folks have also complained that there are some long-time editors who have many positive contributions that remain uncivil because they have learned that such behavior will not have any consequences, and as they have interactions with large numbers of other editors, are suppressing editor retention. So I'm in support of stronger consequences in order to improve Wikipedia culture, but I'm open to ideas if other administrators have suggestions for a better approach than what I've been doing. -- Beland (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

He was of course wasting his time.

This Wikipedia is controlled by Black Kite and Bishonen. People who have long understood the only thing any Administrator needs to understand about Wikipedia. You can do whatever you want, as long as you're prepared to use force and intimidation to achieve it. They know people like Beland are pussies, easily ignored. Look how he got rolled over, bent over and fucked in the ass. By his supposed colleagues.

If there is even a chance this block does go to indefinite, you can expect to see them getting involved.

[ChaosMeRee]

Now we are finally getting somewhere. Not that events up to now haven't been fun.

It's a pretty pathetic turn of events when 18 hours in, the revolutionary camp comprises one lone soldier, Serial dickwad, waffling about the civility police. Yeah yeah yeah. Everyone else is in agreement on one thing, the block was sound.

Which says a lot, because now we know EEng doesn't have a learning disability or a desire to martyr himself. When confronted with universal pushback, he will do what an editor is expected to do. He can and has admitted their conduct was wrong and warranted a reaction. And he has retracted any hint of an allegation that this particle Administrator did anything wrong.

And yet even these things come with caveats and oddities, and are surrounded by all the other nonsense which casts him as the victim not the problem.

So now things are really getting interesting. The site ban train is slowly leaving the station, with the indefinite block express already half way to consensusville.

The logic of waiting for the second train is sound - the first can be derailed by a single rogue track worker (*cough* Bishonen *cough*), meaning ArbCom Terminus is the next stop, but sadly not usually a very popular destination.

A site ban means the peaceful citizens of Wikiland can with far less fuss than an Arb Case, be rest assured EEng is only let on a train back to the world if he can convince more than one person that he understands.....

* Wikipedia is a collaboration (play nice, you cunt)
* You are replaceable (make our day)
* Your conduct is yours to own
* It's not your "job" to be bait for pedo-Admins (you fucking freak)
* Your jokes are shit
* People fucking hate you. Seriously.

No need to tell him in polite policy terms, he knows them all.

As the saying goes, momentum is key, and Team Asshole seems to be completely out of steam. Serial dickhead aside, Boing! was the last person to oppose "any extension, indef or ban". That was still morning time. There have been ELEVEN straight votes who think Boing! is wrong and want to suggest either an extension, indef or ban, since then.

Another five hours of this, taking it to a standard 24 hour block review, and you can probably stick a fork in the jester. Or start the burners on an ArbCom roast. Maybe not the full meal, although someone has already proven there are almost thirty delicious items of "prior dispute resolution" to file, but a helpful motion. A much needed evacuation. Here, try this straight jacket. Isn't it pretty? It is just your colour. Red and black.

EEng is almost begging for an ArbCom case himself. What better for someone who thinks he is being unfairly treated by not being able to correct misinformation about him at AN/I in a timely manner, and who wants everyone to sit down an appreciate just how many of his blocks are completely erroneous?

Errrr, did you just arrive on Wikipedia or what? This is what AN/I does. This is why the only winning strategies (other than not to play) are to be a person other people want to defend, or to never give anyone any reason to have this kind of debate about you in the first place.

A nice calm, slow, deliberation of the evidence can theoretically correct these issues.

Stupid bastard. He would be lucky to escape an Arb Case with ONLY a site ban.

At any time, in any era. But especially now. Throwing yourself at the mercy of six rookies and two sophomores, with nobody on the Commiitte who came up when you did. Unless you think Guerillero, Maxim and Harry Mitchell are your natural defenders? To that, I can only say LOL.

Stupid fucking bastard.

[ChaosMeRee]

Proposal: Refer to Arbitration

User:EEng and civility enforcement

* Several prior attempts at dispute resolution
* Several prior blocks
* Latest 72 your block endorsed, but...
** Even that generated insane amounts of wasted time/effort/incivility (why?)
** Wide disagreement about user's willingness to change (why?)
** Wide disagreement about user's effect on Wikipedia (editor retention, harmony)
** No consensus on what to do next (heeeelp us Obi-Wan)
** Wide agreement user will be blocked again
* Potentially facing a site ban, user is claiming to be the victim of a "kangaroo court", cast unfairly as a malignant presence and unable to defend himself effectively (heeelp ME Obi-Wan)

I surprised myself there. This really is ripe for a full Arbitration Case.

How unfortunate that this is the most inexperienced and democratically illegitimate ArbCom ever seen.

But hey, I'm quite sure the long and illustrious history of UNBLOCKABLES and the malignant reign of Queen Bishonen as some kind of Alternative Government had absolutely nothing to do with that.

HA HA HA HA.

Reap what you sow, you filthy animals.

Die Bart Die.

HTD.

[ChaosMeRee]

Well, unsurprisingly, the debate is now so long it would actually take someone longer than 72 hours to divine the consensus. Wikipedia at its finest.

Here are the only pertinent developments for anyone interested in the Unblockable problem.....

* Someone proposes a civility parole "compromise" (8 Jan, 20:15)

* Eng has a come to Jesus moment and begs to be indef blocked instead (8 Jan, 21.52)

* Civility parole is withdrawn (9 Jan, 01.53)

* Opposition to indef belatedly arrives (from the usual Eric Corbett defender types with the same usual arguments)

The three day block will now expire with no action taken to address its root cause (just as EEng wanted all along) and no plausible reason to expect this same fucking farce won't be repeated somewhere down the line.

Nobody will ever even remember (and EEng will certainly never remind anyone) that when he was finally facing serious consequences for his actions, EEng admitted he "can be prickly" and "sometimes out of line" and suggested in all sincerity that rather than see Wikipedia editors spend a lot of time tussling over what to do about it, he was fine with being indefinitely blocked and filing an appeal at a later date that he hopes will be to "everyone's satisfaction", believing the break would help him to "think twice" before hitting publish on his return.

EEng will be back to his normal self. A born asshole who sees it as his "job" to expose bad Admins by getting himself blocked and then laughing and joking through a massive drama fest.

The dude isn't capable of going for long periods just being an editor.

He's not fucking normal. Or rather, he is all too normal (hardly anyone is temperamentally suited to a life of service and putting a mission before yourself).

Like most people, the dude is on Wikipedia for entirely selfish reasons. That includes his article editing. Just like Iridescent, in his main editing, he is hyper focused on a topic hardly anyone else gives a flying fuck about, but which he is insanely protective of. In other words, vanity publishing. Ego fucking mania.

A supposed 45 year software engineer whose notion of "respect" doesn't even extend to figuring out what a specific bot's task even is (thus how important it might be or how many edits it will require to complete the task) before telling the bot operator to slow it down so as not to inconvenience him and ruin his enjoyment of his hobby.

Prick.

[ChaosMeRee]

Oh gee, what a surprise.

Thread closed, 72 hour blocked waited out, all efforts to discuss further sanctions mooted.

My favourite? Further discussion of an indefinite would be "punitive" because the 72 your block has expired.

Do these people think the whole world are this fucking stupid?

We know what EEng is, and that is why a lot of us really actually do want to stick a pitchfork right through his heart.

With the block expired and EEng set free, he finally admits what is pretty fucking obvious.....

Since people seem to be wondering: No, I don't want to be indeffed. I just thought it would be better for everyone than all that fighting. I very much appreciate all those who took the trouble to look under the surface and see what's really going on. EEng 05:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

He asked to be indeffed only to make sure his supporters rallied to prevent both an indefinite block and a civility parole.

Presumably "see what's really going on" is a reference to the supposed lynch mob that has just been thwarted.

So now the only thing stopping EEng from continuing to do what he admitted he does, occasionally be "out of line" in how he deals with other users, is the same thing as it ever was. Expecting EEng to be a mature, responsible person.

Which he clearly isn't, even after this block. Anyone who thinks cryptic references to the truth are appropriate on Wikipedia, is a fucking child.

What an absolute cunt.

This is Eric Corbett all over again.

A habitual offender who thinks he's God's gift, revels in it, and a group of enablers who will say and do anything to defend them, which he then also revels in.

EEng will step out of line again.

Take a lesson from history. When that happens, do not file an AN/I. Do not play it by the book.

The book is broken.

Ignore the jester.

Make his enablers pay.

Harass the living shit out of everyone who helped EEng avoid what was coming to him. All their names are now in that thread. Start with El_C, who despite claiming he is "cautiously optimistic" of "lessons learned" , presumably will be nowhere to be seen when EEng steps out of line again.

Never forget how truly fucked up Wikipedia "governance" is. How gripped it is by evil people bent on nullifying any enforcement of behavioural rules. This very thread features multiple gross personal attacks by Serial, a man who we were told had learned lessons from his last turn as a subject of an AN/I report for being out of line. Quite the feat, since the corrupt Wikipedia Administrators and asshole enablers allowed him to vacate himself from the entire proceeding.

Is Serial a changed man? Is he fuck. These people do not change. There is nothing about Wikipedia that requires them to change.

Once an asshole, unchanged by multiple short and often overturned blocks, always an asshole.

If you don't take a different path the next time EEng steps out of line, if you don't make his enablers pay severely, this will just go the same way the Eric Corbett fiasco did. Multip!e Arbitration cases, a bazillion words wasted, Administrators directly a using their tools to make sure the nasty little weasel never faced any consequences for his actions (a 72 hour block is not a consequence, not even if it happens once a month).

All that, and then Eric Corbett was finally shown to be a person who thought nothing of bending over his own defenders and fucking them right in the ass, by resorting to sock-puppetry, ensuring be will never, ever, he unblocked. They swore he was a Wikipedia editor in the true sense of the word. They bridled at suggestions he was a selfish little prick only out for himself. Now we know different. Now we know who was right.

As well deserved as that humiliation was, and I will NEVER tire of laughing in the faces of scum like Black Kite, Ynvagottidir, etc, the fact it took a decade to get there, was too long to wait to have the last laugh.

[ChaosMeRee]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... Peranakans

Bearing in mind this thread was initially about how Wikipedia won't even ban EEng from noticeboards, and EEng has just been let back into Wikipedia automatically, with EL_C bullshitting everyone with hopes that lessons had been learned, this is fucking hilarious....

Since I was unable to participate in the discussion except by standing on tippy-toe and shouting through the bars of my holding cell, I would like to exercise a modest right of reply by addressing a few of the assertions made at one point or another.

1. Your attempt to portray a perfectly normal and widely deployed restriction (blocked users only being able to participate in AN/I threads via a third party) with graphic imagery is at best an off colour attempt at humour, at worst a deeply harmful attack on a Wikipedia Administrator just trying to do their best (and whose 72 hour block was roundly endorsed). You have in the past been asked to refrain from these things many times by many users. Not least since your intended point can be made without it (point 2. notwithstanding).

But of course, as we all know, you're a very special editor whose humour is greatly valued and has never attacked another editor in their life (that didn't fucking DESERVE IT, amiright?). You Admin baiting tosser.

2. You have no right of reply, modest or otherwise. Your reply, placed directly below a notice that says "The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion." Is a clear violation of the norms of Wikipedia discourse.

But of course, as we all know, you're a very special editor who doesn't have to comply with the normal rules, not even in simple matters of courtesy surrounding proper talk page usage.

Points 1. and 2. would be enough to get a new user swiftly reblocked if they had previously been warned and blocked for 72 hours for a pattern of incivility.

Needless to say, not a single one of the points he goes on to raise and then argue at length, wasn't something he hadn't already had ample opportunity to argue, and which he and many others had done so on his behalf. To some success. He won. He got out of "jail" quicker than you would for a similar pattern of offences in the real world (adjusting for the fact the worst you can do in the real world is take a life, but on Wikipedia it's merely being an asshole).

And of course, the ensuing argument was not progressed in the sober, considered, restrained, intelligent way you might expect a reformed character to engage in, so soon after the expiry of a fully endorsed block placed for a pattern of incivility.

And of course, there was no Administrator on hand to stop this farce. No Administrator present anywhere on the Administrators noticeboard willing to step in and stop EEng saying things like this.....

You picked the fight by being careless with the truth while trying to put my head on the chopping block. And the conviction I'm reinforcing is that people like you need to watch their step, because the next time something like this happens there will be calls for liars to get blocked.

One of the many acts of blatant misconduct that are not reflected in the tale told by EEng's block log, because to do so YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY GET BLOCKED FOR IT. It is reflected in the record of him being discussed at AN/I, for anyone who has a spare fifty thousand years to read all the way to the bottom.

EEng would and should be site banned for at least a year, if he didn't have a very good reason why this shouldn't be seen for what it is. A window into the mind of an editor who simply cannot restrain themselves from ensuring a significant proportion of their time and energy on Wikipedia is devoted to pursuing unproductive, combative and deeply selfish endeavours, apparently in some misguided belief that Wikipedia is an exercise in justice or an extension of the real world.

Which is not unusual in of itself, Wikipedia does an extremely poor job of keeping its volunteers grounded in basic reality. But when done with the persistence, aggression and sheer bloody mindedness as EEng does it, it becomes a huge problem.

It shows that EEng is someone who clearly, on a fundamental level, when all is said and done, just doesn't appreciate or will never accept that Wikipedia is just a website, and that on Wikipedia, you have only one right. The right to fuck off if you are unhappy with your lot. And clearly, EEng is deeply unhappy. Deeply unhappy. And he wants EVERYONE to feel his pain.

You can fight him or you can fight for him. You are not permitted to ignore him. You are ALL participants in the show. Cheering or puking.

Or in other words, WP:CUNT. Or WP:LOSER.

Eminently ban worthy. All second chances used. All patience, exhausted.

Was not and likely never was a Wikipedian, to borrow a highly controversial phrase uttered by an Arbitrator of Eric Corbett that, in the fullness of time, proved to be 100% correct.

But this is EEng. He is special. Nothing he does can be interpreted with anything but good faith and for the best interest of Wikipedia. If your eyes and policy tell you different, if you fail to see the good faith in calling people "fucking geniuses", then clearly you are the problem. You mob joining pitchfork wielding bastard.

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE.

No, we will not.

We hate Britney.

For your crimes of not protecting innocent users from Britney's naked aggression, you are going to face the consequences.

We are going to harass you.

We are going to target your articles.

We are going to recruit blocked editors to this website and train them how to get revenge.

We will make it hurt.

We will make it pay to be this knowingly cunty while pretending to be part of a website where respect is given unconditionally, according to the fucking manual.

You had your chances to show you were decent human beings.

Or change the clearly inconvenient civility policy.

Camel's back, meet straw.

HTD.

[ChaosMeRee]

And still it continues.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... nts_at_ANI

Unsurprisingly, there are people who think going to EEng's talk page to answer his demands, if only to prevent him dragging you forever, are doing something wrong. As always, Administrators had the option of preventing the cause of this - telling EEng to drop it, and blocking him when he didn't. They took a different path.

Special editor is special.

These people had no objections to EEng fanning the flames of a recently closed debate, making demands of SkyWarrior, demands still in full view, in the apparently very influential script of this insane clown.

And they definitively seemed deeply troubled by the prospect people might have been lying about EEng. But now the prospect of an indefinite block has been defeated, well, gee, they suddenly don't care who was right and who was wrong.

Now SkyWarrior has replied, and the truth of what happened perhaps doesn't match quite how the insane clown posse spun in it at the time, to the point serious questions perhaps need to be asked of El_C about weighting of their objections, and indeed whether enough has happened to justify tabling an indefinite block again, they are sudden totally uninterested in EEng's campaign for The TRUTH.

If he wants the truth, and then he gets it on his talk page, not disturbing anyone else in the process (not least because most can't even read it lol!) and it actually then fucks him in his ass, well, that's a victimless crime, no?

His boyfriend is sick, but EEng cannot stop pursuing this matter.

Give him what he wants.