Vigilant on WPO (member only forum) reacting to this.
Abd has a sad and calls for help!
Reality here: this was a complaint by a noob, probably headed for a block, unless he stops. Nobody responded but me. The advice I gave him is standard. So Vigilant -- who is obviously tracking my every move,
I'm living rent-free in his head -- advises the OP not to pay any attention to me because BAD PERSON, with many posts accusing me of XYZ and the kitchen sink. Occasionally with some "truth," i.e., I am actually office-banned, but.... Vigilant is implying a meaning to that which he knows very well is false.
So Vigilant is, no surprise, a liar.
He doesn't care about the OP at all, and that's obvious. I was not "having a sad." I was simply telling a noob the truth about how Wikipedia works, information he could use (and may be using, he stopped). But any kind of caring, for Vigilant, is contemptable. I pointed to that here because if A gives advice, B claims that A is BAD, a noob will have no idea who is "right," and what is needed is for others to confirm one "side" or the other. Hence the request here. I'm not "sad" at all, there are very many noobs running into the same, But this noob posted to WiA, and I see a WiA feed on the Treehouse server, so I responded, normally.
Meanwhile, just before this last post, Vigilant is considering trying to edit Wikipedia again. His original account still had talk page access open. He never requested unblock from the 2006 block. So
he writes this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vigilant~enwiki
I'm not sure I still have the pw.
I think this could be interesting.
Sadly, Vigilant is also taken.
I'll make a new account that is incontrovertibly me and announce such both here and there and let's just see what happens...
Sad. Vigilant is
sad that he did not protect the name, which he could easily have done. He is
sad because he did not keep the password and probably did not set up email or may not still have access to that email, after 14 years. What to do in this situation is well-known to experienced users. Yes, the simplest thing to do, within policy, is create a new account, immediately linking it to the old one.
He could also request renaming. He is not blocked on meta, where he could request renaming (so that the new account would have his contribution history. "Vigilant" was taken by an es.wiki user in 2007. That user has not edited for over two years and might not object. But making requests is not Vigilant's style. I used to clerk renamings. If he simply creates with a link to the old on the user page, it is possible that nothing will happen from it, or it will be blocked as a sock, telling him to make an unblock request on the original talk page. But talk page access would probably not be shut down and he could then explain the password problem.
But this is hilarious. I love Poetlister's tag line on WPO:
Nonentities, claiming to be vigilant, are jealous of people with real achievements. They proxy for banned user Timothy Usher, using his dubious claims in vain attempts to belittle them.
