http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...er:WordBomb_ban.

Interesting stuff. Well, more of the same, perhaps.

I was under the impression Wordbomb had no interest in editing Wikipedia, having seen what a corrupt mess it made of the Gary Weiss business. I may be wrong, but somehow I can't see Wordy hunched over a screen trimming categories and reverting vandals.

One thing is for sure on reading the discussion, even JzG is biting his tongue and laying off the ridiculous abusive patter of yore. No more "vicious troll" blah blah blah.

Guy just does not see it does he?

Now it was just explained that, under the Law of Consensus, if an admin chooses to overturn a block then the community ban (whatever one of those is) cannot stick. So Mantanmoreland was blocked but it did not stick and it was deemed inappropriate to reblock due to lack of consensus. What's the betting an admin could not achieve the same here.

The thing that really annoys me is that, unless I keep missing something, the only thoroughly evil, death penalty deserving act that WordBomb did was attempt to prove that someone was deceiving Wikipedia by discovering their identity when they lied about it, and still do in the face of incontrovertible evidence. And who brought the dispute onto Wikipedia? I thought it was already there.

One day I might keep up.

I noticed the same. Perhaps there is some fatigue on this issue. Last I looked, there is not Georgewilliamherbert, SlimVirgin, FloNight, Morven, or Crum375 making melodramatic accusations and metaphors in the discussion.

I'm sure there's plenty of fatigue, but they'll show up sooner or later. Same old WP story, really - if someone proves that your reason for doing whatever corrupt, evil thing you did was wrong, you just come up with another reason, and pretend the first reason had "nothing to do with it."

Well, Guy does continue to say things like "so obviously pursuing an external agenda in the most vicious and aggressive way possible" which simply is nonsense and does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

What Somey is describing is called rationalization, wherein one tries to devise a logical, sound, or well-grounded rationale for objecting to something that one finds merely dreadful, disgusting, or repugnant.

It's one thing to prefer that the world around us does not continually present us with stimuli that we personally find dreadful, disgusting, or repugnant. But if one is going to offer a rationale, the only authentic rationale is that one finds the objectionable material emotionally disturbing.