User:Chase me ladies, I'm the cavalry, Another member of the military moonlights as an admin and makes a fool Options

[EricBarbour]

Well, that Panwyn chick found him amusing -- remember they were editing together on a date?

That's Panyd, silly boy.

I could swear that someone outed Chase Me on WR last year......Ah!

[A Horse With No Name]

Well, that Panwyn chick found him amusing -- remember they were editing together on a date?

That's Panyd, silly boy.

Panwyn, Panyd, Panovision, Pandemonium...eh, you can't tell these characters apart without a program.

[Somey]

So is this guy really in the Royal Navy or is he a bike messenger with a Walter Mitty streak?

Generally speaking, if a person's claimed backstory is fairly plausible, I like to give him the benefit of the doubt. Some of you might recall that I even wanted to give Essjay the benefit of the doubt at first, after seeing his Wikia-staff user page.

It does seem as though an active-duty submariner would be too busy, uh, submarining to be a Wikipedia admin, but to his credit, he does take signifcant amounts of time-off from WP activities, most recently from July 1 to July 20. The username tends to suggest someone who's trying a bit too hard to be clever, but that's not proof of deception, nor is the fact that he's photographed here in front of an all-but-mothballed submarine in drydock rather than one that's in regular use. (It's possible the HMS Ocelot is still used for training, I suppose.) I'm also reasonably certain that there's no law, even in the UK, against appearing in public wearing only part of one's uniform - though I doubt they encourage it, of course. Still, to me that's actually the biggest question here: Why not the whole uniform? Even on Wikipedia it would be nothing to be ashamed of, and if he's concerned about being identified (though he already has been), you'd think he'd avoid posting any photos of himself whatsoever. And as Mr. Ba - oops, Basil points out, his hair is too long even for the Royal Nay-vee (hey man, it's something other than else!). But hair grows back, and the "partial uniform" thing is probably nothing - maybe he just doesn't think he looks good in it.

I still haven't figured out the need to air out his navel, as he's holding up the shirt to do. I guess this really is navel duty.

It's possible that he's only realizing that his shirt isn't tucked in as he sees the camera is being pointed at him, and he's reaching down to do that, sort of as a reflex or whatever. But if that were the case, you'd think he wouldn't be so fond of the photo that he'd upload it onto Wikipedia and put it on his user page...?

Anyhoo, he does seem to be an odd sort of character, but I'm far from ready to say his backstory is bogus. After all, if it isn't bogus, then to say otherwise might easily be taken as disrespectful to the entire Royal Navy Submarine Command, a fine group of brave and sharp fellows if ever there was one, who are serving their country honorably and (in most cases) quite selflessly.

[A Horse With No Name]

I don't know if England's answer to Captain Crunch is aware of this conversation, but this photo is now on his user page:



I am not certain what he is doing in this photo, but I get the impression (based on his non-military haircut and the blurry presence of the man in the pink shirt and white hat in the background) he is engaged in some sort of a carnival game -- most likely the one where you shoot a water rifle into a plastic clown's mouth and inflate a balloon in an attempt to win a stuffed toy.

[A Horse With No Name]

Anyhoo, he does seem to be an odd sort of character, but I'm far from ready to say his backstory is bogus.

There used to be other photos of him on his MySpace page that showed him clowning around at a pub. I've never seen any photos online where he is actually in a Royal Navy uniform.

As an admin, I always thought that he was something of a dope.

[Skinny87]

That is indeed Chatham Dockyard - you can recognize HMS Cavalier in the background, the Second World War British Destroyer Memorial, I used to volunteer there.

Oceolt is in permanent drydock and certainly isn't used for training; it's been a few years, but if memory serves she's been welded to the drydock and wouldn't be able to go out to sea even if she wanted to. As an aside, if anyone ever can get to the Dockyard, it's a great place to explore, if a little pricey. The Ocelot is a tight squeeze to get into, but quite impressive to go around.

[Somey]

The Ocelot is a tight squeeze to get into, but quite impressive to go around.

Thank goodness I'm an admin here, and therefore I would never dream of quoting something like that out-of-context!

[Subtle Bee]

The Ocelot is a tight squeeze to get into, but quite impressive to go around.

Thank goodness I'm an admin here, and therefore I would never dream of quoting something like that out-of-context!

Also, I'm interested in getting my hands on anything you've been ingesting orally...

Yup. It's a good policy.

[Skinny87]

The Ocelot is a tight squeeze to get into, but quite impressive to go around.

Thank goodness I'm an admin here, and therefore I would never dream of quoting something like that out-of-context!

Of course you wouldn't - think of WR's reputation!

[Peter Damian]

Bumping this with the recent newsround piece on the BBC, for your interest. Warning: pictures of a Wikipedian's bedsit, not for the faint-hearted.

Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, is 10 years old.
Since its launch in 2001, the site has grown from nothing to around 17m articles (3.5m in English).
Its open style, with most articles available to be edited by anyone, has attracted controversy and criticism.
For some, the ability to update and contribute to the site is addictive.
Richard Symonds is one of the UK's top "Wikipedians" and spends up to eight hours a day working on the site.
He is currently unemployed, so is working full-time for free.
That dedication has led to Richard becoming one of only 18 "Arbitrators": high-end users voted onto a committee that decides on the most controversial subjects.
That role can also attract unwanted attention, as he explains.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12181483

See also here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=265601

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 16th January 2011, 3:55pm

[Peter Damian]

Bumping this with the recent newsround piece on the BBC, for your interest. Warning: pictures of a Wikipedian's bedsit, not for the faint-hearted.

Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, is 10 years old.
Since its launch in 2001, the site has grown from nothing to around 17m articles (3.5m in English).
Its open style, with most articles available to be edited by anyone, has attracted controversy and criticism.
For some, the ability to update and contribute to the site is addictive.
Richard Symonds is one of the UK's top "Wikipedians" and spends up to eight hours a day working on the site.
He is currently unemployed, so is working full-time for free.
That dedication has led to Richard becoming one of only 18 "Arbitrators": high-end users voted onto a committee that decides on the most controversial subjects.
That role can also attract unwanted attention, as he explains.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12181483

See also here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=265601

[edit] Oh yes and he is not working 'for free'. Presumably is work on Wikipedia is being funded at the taxpayer's expense, i.e. at my expense. Outrageous. Get a job (and a life).

[Heat]

Bumping this with the recent newsround piece on the BBC, for your interest. Warning: pictures of a Wikipedian's bedsit, not for the faint-hearted.

Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, is 10 years old.
Since its launch in 2001, the site has grown from nothing to around 17m articles (3.5m in English).
Its open style, with most articles available to be edited by anyone, has attracted controversy and criticism.
For some, the ability to update and contribute to the site is addictive.
Richard Symonds is one of the UK's top "Wikipedians" and spends up to eight hours a day working on the site.
He is currently unemployed, so is working full-time for free.
That dedication has led to Richard becoming one of only 18 "Arbitrators": high-end users voted onto a committee that decides on the most controversial subjects.
That role can also attract unwanted attention, as he explains.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12181483

See also here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=265601

[edit] Oh yes and he is not working 'for free'. Presumably is work on Wikipedia is being funded at the taxpayer's expense, i.e. at my expense. Outrageous. Get a job (and a life).

Hm, he says ArbComm deals with "content disputes".

This post has been edited by Heat: Sun 16th January 2011, 4:38pm

[Peter Damian]

Hm, he says ArbComm deals with "content disputes".

Indeed, 'very very top end content disputes' [sic].

[Heat]

Hm, he says ArbComm deals with "content disputes".

Indeed, 'very very top end content disputes' [sic].

You'd think in six years trying to get on the ArbComm he would have learned that "ArbComm doesn't deal with content disputes"? Well, this restores my faith in that venerated institution, truly staffed by le creme de la creme.

This post has been edited by Heat: Sun 16th January 2011, 4:39pm

[A Horse With No Name]

Richard Symonds is one of the UK's top "Wikipedians" and spends up to eight hours a day working on the site.
He is currently unemployed, so is working full-time for free.

Uh, so what happened to the Royal Navy? I thought he was out doing the Rule Brittania routine on the choppy waves.

And that video on the BBC web site is hilarious. He looks and sounds like the gecko from the GEICO commercials that run on US television.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Sun 16th January 2011, 6:46pm

[Peter Damian]

Richard Symonds is one of the UK's top "Wikipedians" and spends up to eight hours a day working on the site.
He is currently unemployed, so is working full-time for free.

Uh, so what happened to the Royal Navy? I thought he was out doing the Rule Brittania routine on the choppy waves.

And that video on the BBC web site is hilarious. He looks and sounds like the gecko from the GEICO commercials that run on US television.

I am in the Royal Naval Reserve, occasionally full-time and occasionally part-time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chase_me...27m_the_Cavalry

Occasionally none of the time, I suppose.

[RMHED]

Bumping this with the recent newsround piece on the BBC, for your interest. Warning: pictures of a Wikipedian's bedsit, not for the faint-hearted.

Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, is 10 years old.
Since its launch in 2001, the site has grown from nothing to around 17m articles (3.5m in English).
Its open style, with most articles available to be edited by anyone, has attracted controversy and criticism.
For some, the ability to update and contribute to the site is addictive.
Richard Symonds is one of the UK's top "Wikipedians" and spends up to eight hours a day working on the site.
He is currently unemployed, so is working full-time for free.
That dedication has led to Richard becoming one of only 18 "Arbitrators": high-end users voted onto a committee that decides on the most controversial subjects.
That role can also attract unwanted attention, as he explains.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12181483

See also here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=265601

That whole interview was a real cringe-fest.

Am I the only one who feels embarrassed on his behalf?

[A Horse With No Name]

Am I the only one who feels embarrassed on his behalf?

What does Panyd feel?

I am in the Royal Naval Reserve, occasionally full-time and occasionally part-time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chase_me...27m_the_Cavalry

What a funny snapshot! Message to the Argentine military: you may want to take a second crack at regaining the Falklands!

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Sun 16th January 2011, 7:42pm

[Guido den Broeder]

Where is Horatio Hornblower when you need him?

[EricBarbour]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12181483

That whole interview was a real cringe-fest.
Am I the only one who feels embarrassed on his behalf?

Don't be---he is, sadly, a typical obsessive and not-very-social WPer.
Incapable of self-examination, thus has no idea that he appears to be a stereotypical dork.
All he needs is some tape on the glasses.

But do bookmark this interview, and use it as a future example/warning for others.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Tue 18th January 2011, 4:44am