Merge this in my previous thread if you want, but for its sheer amount of lulziness (I laughed for a good 15 minutes), I thought it deserved its own.

To mark the 6th month of my ban being completed, I donated two well written and developed pages to the Foundation. Sj, without my knowledge, discussion with me, etc, imported the pages to en to replace the woefully inadequate pages.

Just like the Elegy page as see here and here, there were no problems. Quite the opposite, Arbitrator Carcharoth paid strong attention to the page in an effort to ensure it was all done by the book and wanted to be involved in the GAN/FAC of it.

But Rlevse is up to something, and you can see a stir. But that is something to speculate about elsewhere. Instead, I bring you something that made me laugh harder than I laughed in a long time:

Victualler's decision - No DYK credit. Consider action action against those aiding and abetting and for extending bans. IMO [[User:Victuallers|Victuallers]]

First of all, aiding and abetting? How? By transferring GFDL material and using it according to licensing? There is no different from the above and the 1911 Britannica. But the funny part is that Victuallers must not have looked to see that Sj was the one who transferred the material. The same Sj who is both a Steward and a Board Member.

But then there is this lulz:

* Ode: Intimations of Immortality ‎ (Protected Ode: Intimations of Immortality: Excessive sock puppetry: Involves a banned user - constructed in SIMPLE. See DYK discussion ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:32, 6 July 2010 (U)
* Kubla Khan ‎ (Protected Kubla Khan: Excessive sock puppetry: This page has been moved from Simple. Its a DYK candidate and involves a banned user allegedly. ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:10, 6 July)

The person who edited both were Sj and Chzz. Neither are my socks. My IP is clearly visible via IRC. ArbCom has it. They also know I am logged in and that info is recorded. Now, if I was either socking with Sj or Chzz, that would be amazing. That would mean I either had to fork over a lot more money than our dear Kohs did, I am a wonderful hacker (even though I have no clue about programming or really much to do with computers in general), or I infiltrated the Wiki so successfully that all of my blundering to this point is a magical charade.

From your link:


Was that sarcasm? I hope so. Otherwise, you may be gay for these men, hopelessly gullible, or both.

You know, there was an Australian racehorse named Kubla Khan and he won the 1979 Hobart Cup. How come that's not in the article, hmmm?

I think there are at least several other possibilities.

What a damn shame the Academy Awards don't have any Wikipedia categories!

Now Karanacs admits why she sunk the Author's Farce page even though the concerns were either handled or deemed illegitimate.



You have to love how she completely lied, as not one ban reason has anything to do with the pages I edited. And bullying? She would know, as she abused her ops to torment and bully people throughout the Roman Catholic Church ordeal.

I dunno... "No soup for you" was funny on Seinfeld because you don't expect someone working a soup counter to say something like that. But "No DYK credit for you" is pretty much exactly what you would have expected, right? So it only works as comedy if you take a reductio ad absurdem approach, or maybe if you're trying to use the repetition itself as a comedic strategy, as in Waiting for Godot or something like that. But the latter only works if the action is repeated almost immediately.

That's just my own perspective, of course... To be honest though, I think it's funnier that they won't use your name on the DYK talk page, consistently referring to you as "a banned user," as if this somehow makes it OK for them to think of human beings in the abstract.

Well, if it's any consolation, Jeff, I already wrote a song about that. Enjoy.

I wasn't referring to the credit. I was referring to the calls for a block against a Foundation Board member and heavy insinuations that he was "proxying" for me, even though there was no proof there was ever any communication between the two.

That stretch of the term "proxy" goes far beyond what is logically acceptable, and Rlevse started using it to try and fit it into some area of Wiki policy that he could go after. However, as shown during Elegy, they have no grounds for any kind of complaint, so it is just a magic show with a whole lot of diversion tactics and very little reality.

Shame, Blame, and Fame

At the risk of derailing this thread with something serious, I wonder if Dogbiscuit caught the latest episode of Heart and Soul on BBC World Service.

The subject of the story is the powerful role of shame, blame, and fame in turning a person's life upside down.

The episode focuses on a scandalous "honor killing" in the Sikh community, but the story illustrates a spiritual issue that goes back to Cain and Abel -- the significance of honor, dignity, and respect in the community.

Zealous attachment to honor and dignity is arguably the single greatest factor in stories of blood revenge.

It's the oldest story in civil strife, and also the newest one.

And it's the story of Ottava, Wikipedia, and almost everyone else here.

I'm more into Chucky and Lie To Me at the moment, so I didn't, but I do understand the essential point.

I let the subject drop after saying my piece, but I do think that it is an interesting conundrum - having pride is seen as a good thing, but it is also a path to being unable to negotiate a resolution. Honour killings are currently in the spotlight over here in the UK, and of course with our culture we struggle to understand how another culture's priorities drive people to do things that we simply would not contemplate. Clearly Ottava's approach to Wikipedia leaves us in a similar conundrum, and I would venture that in the same way as the majority of us find honour killings unjustifiable, therefore quickly reject it as wrong, the majority find it easy to find Ottava's stance unjustifiable and easy to reject.

The interesting thing is therefore to understand the influences and mindset that allow another person to rationalise their position. I wouldn't really equate Ottava's intransigence with honour killings in any way in terms of seriousness, but I'd agree that it is interesting to understand how his values manage to be so different that he rationalises his position in such a different way that we can't comprehend it (and I don't think song parodies are the appropriate research tool to resolve this, before you ask ).

She??? Anyone got pics?

Hellooooooooooooooooo, mama!

But this is serious, so serious that only Ming-Ming can express the level of seriousness:

That was silliness. Although, to be fair, it was a song parody.

I will quote a supervisor at a recent meeting:

"Although our team's errors and misunderstandings impacted the customer in a serious fashion, I just want to say that I don't think any of the responsible parties should consider seppuku."

Self-amputation of the little finger of your left hand will do. This time.

On how many different thread does Ottava get to post this?