Just wanted to send a little message here to "Tiptoety".

This isn't me.

Therefore, this is a bit out of line.

I'll leave you with this thought about your "passing comment", Tiptoety:

Here's a suggestion: make a fake hoax of your own to make the current one less plausible by association.

Don't think Tyler's reading this, sorry......this is likely to be an "interesting" location for the next few days.
(Or maybe not. The wankers who keep you blocked can probably just ignore it.)

Tiptoey is a checkuser now, right? Maybe he can use those powers to get to the bottom of this?

He can, but that would be an abuse of CU rights.

So it isn't you. So why complain about it? If they try to actually ding you for sock puppetry, particularly on Commons, then you'd have a point.

Who, do you think, is Thekohser 4.0?

As to the meta comment, it was stupid. So? Do you think it is interesting news that someone makes a stupid comment on meta?

Guido seems to be learning how to approach this. The "wankers" may find themselves outflanked. I commented there, we'll see what happens.

Congratulations, Guido. Stay on track, and, in fact, at this point, better that you sit back and watch the splash. Let others say what you would say, and give them the time to do it! The less you comment, now, the better. But your responses to Kylu were excellent: brief, civil, etc. I see some good possibility that an admin or steward will simply see this RfC and say, "what the hell?"and open up Talk page access; I suggested that the opening admin affirm whatever restriction might exist, but the fact is that there is practically no possibility of actual damage even if Thekohser were actually GRAWP.

What, a user Talk page has the user raving on it? Happens all the time, and if it's truly objectionable, anyone can blank it. Anyone, and if the user insists, revert warring -- normally allowed for a user on their own talk page -- would lead to immediate shutdown of Talk page access, with practically no discussion, if the removed material was grossly uncivil.

What causes damage is extensive discussion, off the Talk page, of what should be trivial, obvious actions. Like allowing Talk page access on meta, unless there is a very, very good reason not to. That's getting violated rather routinely, at least by Abigor. It's about time that this start to be confronted. That is real damage, wasting lots of valuable time.

Abd, you obviously don't understand how I derive joy from Wikimedia projects.

Then smile when you say that, Greg. In no way do I begrudge you your joy.

It seems to me that you just admitted "trolling." That's okay, to my mind, "trolling" is an ancient and honorable profession, there is a place in this world for everyone.

However, if that's true, then some of Jimbo's apparent violations of AGF were not, they were merely clear-eyed, if sometimes clumsy.

I hope you find my comments on meta today to be accurate and useful, just as I hope meta admins think the same about them. The sun shines on the just and the unjust, and I aspire to that level of detachment.

I think you have much that is valuable to contribute to the projects, especially as a critic, and my work is in trying to set up structure and process to facilitate that, while preventing useless and disruptive conflict. I have no doubt that this can be done, given enough users who think it's important and who start to support efforts like this.

Otherwise, it really doesn't matter either way, the whole thing will collapse under its own weight, whether you or I poke at it on the way down, or not.

Lots of experienced Wikipedians, from ordinary users up to functionaries, are aware of the serious problems, but generally don't know what to do about it. We need leadership and we need structure to bring out the best in the community, instead of effectively encouraging the worst to take over, which is what largely happened.

Yes. In other words, it went the way of most human endevors. In politics and the military, the relationship of one's power/rank to one's competence are only vague. More important are whose ass you kissed, and how much time you've put in, and how long you've been around. The relationship between rank and skill are only nodding aquaintences in the military, and in politics, are held a bit closer together (at least in democracies), only by the fact that it usually takes some political/people skill to get elected, in the first place.

And the military would completely take over politics (and often does) unless prevented. In the US, only the power of an intangible idea of the goodness of civilian military control, which all military leaders are inculcated with, along with long historical example starting with Washington, keeps this from happening. Everywhere else in history, pure force rules. Even today, many places on the planet are unstable to military-rule.

Wikipedia is made on the military cum non-democratic-political model. What the hell else do you expect from it? It won't be fixed by "leadership" or "structure". It has the leadership it does, and the structure it does, because it was set up by way by Jimbo Wales. It's not going anywhere in the direction of enlightenment until it starts to learn from the rest of the history of human organization. Which it has absolutely NO incentive to do right now. Any more than the military (even in the US military) does.

Odd, I would have believed that Wikipedia was modeled along the lines of this:

Yes, exactly. The horrors of human reproduction. An hour of joy may lead to 30 years with Fred. Or more.

This may be a bit off-topic, but that is an outstanding video. It gets better with repeated viewings.