Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Editors _ Merridew
Posted by: Ottava
What does Merridew have on so many Arbs? We know that John Vandenberg and Risker bent over backwards to not only protect Jack but encourage his absolutely disruptive behavior. But looking over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Query_about_a_serial_sockpuppeter is revolting. The user disrupts thousands of articles, has dozens of socks that harass people, and breaks every policy that would get anyone else banned. Jack has not only destroyed articles but chased off legitimate content editors or used his socks to help cheer on bans.
AGK, Floquenbean, etc., all say things that are worthy of banning there. They are justifying the worst behavior, and that is like saying we should let a pyromaniac have as much access to gasoline and matches as possible. It is really, really irresponsible.
AGK, what the fuck is wrong with you? You are here. You aren't able to defend yourself, so I don't expect a response. But don't you feel any shame? You have kept many good people banned, but you are absolutely defending some of the most disgusting, worst people there.
Posted by: Text
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Br%27er_Rabbit
LE FUNNI SCUTTLING AND THEN GETTING BLOCKED BY ADMIN MEME
Posted by: Text
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Garrafa-azul
The account has no edits and is free to edit, yet it's tagged as being Davenbelle.
I think Ed17 is wrong, this guy is clearly the Wikipedia is Communism vandal, i can tell by his clear left-wing choice of username and previous pattern of edits.
Posted by: Detective
I think we can all agree that Merridew is one of these people that Wikipedia is better without. Isn't it funny how some such people get banned, while others become Checkusers and oversighters? Some people get much more protection than Merridew ever did.
Posted by: Text
Have oversighters and checkusers generally been "elected" because of their high number of edits and active participation on some internal project? Or have they been elected because they were friends of friends and friends on IRC, and similar things?
Posted by: Jay
Have oversighters and checkusers generally been "elected" because of their high number of edits and active participation on some internal project? Or have they been elected because they were friends of friends and friends on IRC, and similar things?
Oh, definitely the latter. And of course there are the token females, who are beyond criticism just because they are token females.
Posted by: Text
What if a token female is proven to be unsuited for the role but they choose to elect her, instead of a more competent male counterpart, assuming they can tell who is behind the screen? Is that a good thing to do in their opinion?
Posted by: Retrospect
What if a token female is proven to be unsuited for the role but they choose to elect her, instead of a more competent male counterpart, assuming they can tell who is behind the screen? Is that a good thing to do in their opinion?
Sigh! You seem to be assuming that the shitheads' aim is to have good checkusers and oversighters. No, their aim is to attract more editors and having a few prominent females wil help that. These naive new editors don't realise that these token females are twats.
Posted by: Text
Well, we all reached the conclusion that the Foundation is a bus full of people with a random person behind the wheel, while going across a huge desert first, and then approaching towns, villages, and cities, and disregarding everyone who is on the road.
PEDAL TO THE METAL, AND NEVER LIFT!