User talk:Xeno

Notes: I will usually reply where original comments occurred and add notifications if thought necessary. You may email me regarding anything sensitive, private, or confidential. I work for or provide services to the Wikimedia Foundation, but this is my personal account. Edits, statements, or other contributions made from this account are my own, and may not reflect the views of the Foundation. Feel free to post a message or ask a question. Please be sure to [[wikilink]] appropriate subjects. Thanks for visiting! click here to leave a new message...

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

ok

not the bar owner, but all of the other three. 110.139.190.67 (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

cryptic message is cryptic! –xeno^talk 14:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You know what the term for a group of vultures is? a committee. 110.139.190.67 (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh! I get it now. The complete lack of surprise... –xeno^talk 14:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've not been surprised since February. 110.139.190.67 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In a certain sense, you are fortifying the walls from within. –xeno^talk 14:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I had a bit of trouble parsing your comment, last night. Understand that from my perspective, I've been under siege for years, and in that context it's useful to fortify the walls from within. You're of course referring to the gaol walls, but that presumes that the sentence was just. I got a bum-rap. Sure, I socked and evaded restrictions, but my core intent has always been the protection of the project from bias and poor editing. See monitor[ing] Coolcat: with the view to bringing problems he caused to the attention of the community. That's a *good* thing; we're supposed to find collaborative solutions. But I get maligned as a stalker, and little shits are free to clearly state that they consider me a stalker in the real-world criminal sense of the word. The AC, by allowing such toxic terminology to be freely used in reference to myself, has done a lot to feed the toxic elements of this benighted site. When it comes to Merridew, there are no fuckin' rules and any idiot gets a free pass to attack me. Most of the arbs, indeed most editors, were not here for the genesis of this; some may have read some of the old case pages, but that's no substitute for actual knowledge of what really happened. It is part of the nature of a wiki that whoever harps on a message loud enough and long enough will convince a fair number of people that there's some truth to their shite. I have not stalked or harassed anyone. What I have done is opposed a bigot who was disruptive and opposed his enablers, and I've also opposed other disruptive users and their enablers. Where's my defender of the wiki barnstar (nb: wc ran rickk off for whom that barnstar is named).

The fact is that this six-year long story has been a fuck-up all along. I have apologized for going outside the socking lines, and for evading the ancient restrictions. I have hewn to good advice and AC restrictions for three years and have done more good here than most participants. I was offered a road back, and thought that it would be a good precedent to set; that users can return to grace and put a past behind them. But I no longer believe that the wiki is capable of such things.

Ever hear of a Pecking Party?^cite

"a pecking party, where a group of hens, seeing a spot of blood on one of their number, will peck that hen to death."

see also: a typical thread at ani...

This place becomes less an encyclopedia and more an experiment in pure power-building everyday. What's the AC defending? Their power. What's the core rationale for keeping me restricted? My defying that power after three years of demonstrating that I can abide and do good. The argument that I need to be restricted to one account is absurd; I've a distinctive approach to the wiki and have made no effort to hide the various IPs and accounts I've used. I've let someone know about them, every time. The likes of Risker are not seeking to avoid future issues with multiple accounts, they're seeking to avoid setting the precident of ever fulling rehabilitating a banned user (and in her case, getting back at me for calling her on shite and to aid those at my heels).

110.139.190.67 (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been quite clear that I will not abide by restrictions that should have been lifted ages ago. If the committee wants to unleash the thugs to beat a few IPs to a bloody pulp over a joke account, and have a fair number of reasonable editors be appalled by it, I'm happy to oblige. 'Jack' was always a mirror to the community, anyway. Gotta go, 110.139.190.67 (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this whole thing took a sharp downhill with this edit. Still don't understand that one. –xeno^talk 15:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You have to see it in the light of the chronologically previous comment [1]: "I'm certainly not going to support lifting a restriction that is being flaunted repeatedly", and the utter hubris of "Frankly, if not for the defiance in creating these additional accounts, I'd have seriously considered lifting all of the remaining sanctions" in the comment above that one.

You are right though, that those two edits mark the sharp downturn in events, quite contrary to Jack's very reasonable expectations. There he was, like a prisoner tantalised with a promise of freedom, when the gates were slammed shut in his face. I'm not surprised by his response in the circumstances, and you really shouldn't be either. --RexxS (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

My personal favourite: "worthy of a smackdown". Epic. What do we have to do to be worthy of a smackdown? At what point is Coren going to smack me down? Does he have the right? Does anyone? The sheer pomposity of it leaves me speechless. Jack scuttled his accounts with one hour of this post. Coincidence? I think not --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Things went south with Coren's comments, but it really started with Risker's comment. She previously voted to "commend [me] for a clean return" and the bit (2.) re my "transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing" (my bold;). Now she's after permanent restriction. As I [2], I see Risker as involved, and her continued participation makes the entire process illegitimate. Want me to go into detail in public? I can say some of it. Somewhere it says to bring recusal request up on an arb's talk page, but hers was semi'd and I was on only an IP at the time. She's just un-semi'd it, but I see that as bait to reply to Doc9871's continued dogging of me.

Also, technically I didn't create user:Merridew; you (xeno) did when you usurped it for me. That was an entirely legitimate request for anti-impersonation reasons and because Gimmetoo was rudely referring to me simple as "Merridew". He's another that's been dogging me for a year, and Risker waded in there, too. The net effect of these years of restriction is that anything goes when it comes to me; truth is I've received a hundred times as much as harassment and bad faith as I've ever been accused of. And it's all due to the various ACs having failed to ever resolve anything; they just prolong things. This failure, repeated in many cases, is *why* this project has gone toxic. The committee is craven before the mob of anyones and feeds their taste for blood.

Motion 5 is all fucked-up. Multiple arbs are saying they prefer sink-or-swim, but have not voted for it. My take-away is that unexpressed, back-room shite is driving that. The fix is in; Jack will be fucked forever. So, I'm left with the option of illustrating this. I've not been doing so in a disruptive manner, just in a really embarrassing manner (and constructive re articles).

110.139.190.67 (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)