Misplaced Pages

User talk:Crockspot: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:28, 2 December 2007 editFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits →A bit of friendly advice, for what it's worth: it gets worse, nows the time for you to help← Previous edit Revision as of 05:33, 2 December 2007 edit undoCrockspot (talk | contribs)8,746 edits →A bit of friendly advice, for what it's worthNext edit →
Line 144: Line 144:


:::Hence my advice to disengage. I'll have a look at Filll's edits and comments. If there's anything untoward, I'll have a similar word with him; my experience has been that he's reasonable and abides by the rules, if a bit gruff. Aren't we all. For the record, as best I can tell by , User:67.135.49.177 still has a number of hours to go before his block expires and yet he's editing now under his Jinxmchue account, a serious violation of ], ] and ]. I've warned him and will reissue the block and reset the clock if he continues. You seem to have his ear, perhaps you'd like to have a word with him and get him to settle down and abide by our policies. As it is, he won't last long as he's going. BTW, I'm familiar with article, the source in question, and the facts surrounding the issues, and I think you're mistaken in the points you've made, but that's for another discussion another time. ] 05:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC) :::Hence my advice to disengage. I'll have a look at Filll's edits and comments. If there's anything untoward, I'll have a similar word with him; my experience has been that he's reasonable and abides by the rules, if a bit gruff. Aren't we all. For the record, as best I can tell by , User:67.135.49.177 still has a number of hours to go before his block expires and yet he's editing now under his Jinxmchue account, a serious violation of ], ] and ]. I've warned him and will reissue the block and reset the clock if he continues. You seem to have his ear, perhaps you'd like to have a word with him and get him to settle down and abide by our policies. As it is, he won't last long as he's going. BTW, I'm familiar with article, the source in question, and the facts surrounding the issues, and I think you're mistaken in the points you've made, but that's for another discussion another time. ] 05:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I think Jinx believes that his block is expired, in good faith, but I will have a word with him. Allow me to restate the problem I have one more time: The source in question poses an argument that the statement in the article does not pose itself. The sentence is a simple statement of what the organization is. That's all. I have no problem if the argument posed by the source was actually stated in the text of the article, and the cite was attached to it. But the sentence that the source is attached to does not say anything about that argument. Does that source even support the sentence that is in the article? Why does no one understand this very simple point I am trying to get across? - ] 05:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:33, 2 December 2007

As of August 2007, inactive discussions are archived by MiszaBot III after five days. See archive box for previous discussions.

Welcome Click here to leave a new message.

Template:Archive box collapsible

User:67.135.49.177

Maybe if he hadn't been warned twice and simply deleted the warnings there'd be a case for lifting the block. Adam Cuerden 14:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Crockspot, User:67.135.49.177 is Jinxmchue. Jinmchue has been editing from two IPs in order to avoid scrutiny. These edits consists of edit warring only. This has resulted in multiple 3RR vios, disruption and at least one block. He's clearly using IPs to avoid having his bad behavior not associated with his main account, Jinxmchue. That falls under the defintion of sock puppetry at WP:SOCK: "alternate accounts ... a number of uses which are explicitly forbidden - in particular, using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny, to mislead others by making disruptive edits with one account and normal ones with another, or otherwise artificially stir up controversy is not permitted. Misuse of an alternate account may result in being blocked from editing."

How about doing something more constructive, like showing him the error of his way, rather than reverting a template which just enables and encourages the behavior that landed him here. FeloniousMonk 18:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of his activity. He logged out months ago, which is completely within his rights as an editor. During his few edits under a dynamic IP, he has never hidden who he was. I never had any problem spotting him, so it is no great sleuth job to figure out. While he may be more prone to frustration than is ideal, he has legitimate positions on the issues he is passionate about. There are countless editors who edit under IP, and have dynamic addresses that change every few days. That is not a crime. As for me doing something positive, I am. I am trying to set a positive example for him on the article and talk page where he was blocked for edit warring. He did not technically violate 3RR there, as far as I can see, nor did any other editor. But if we are going to characterize what was going on there as an edit war, then he is not the only guilty party, and should not have been the only editor blocked. To me, this smacks of a pack of hyenas ganging up on an editor they do not agree with. I'm not about to stand idly by and watch him be abused. This is not the first time he has been singled out while other guilty parties were let off the hook. It takes more than one editor to make an edit war, and just because one editor is outnumbered does not make the group any less guilty. I have hesitated to get involved in the ID-related articles, because frankly, it isn't something I care about all that much. I'm pretty neutral on the subject. But I do care about fair treatment of editors, and neutrality in editing and sourcing articles. From what I have seen, the ID articles are controlled by a group of anti-ID editors. The problems I pointed out with the lead intro of Discovery Institute are symptomatic of this problem, and only scratch the surface of the NPOV problems that permeate those articles. You can rest assured that I will be more active in those article in the future, and will do so well withing policy and guidelines, hopefully setting a positive example for all of you. I'm quite busy these days, and have not been on wiki as much as usual, but I will be keeping an eye on things, and will speak out strongly when I see a problem. - Crockspot 01:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Your own behavior is what is disrupting the project now. After your adovcacy and enabling of Jinxmchue's sock puppeting shenanigans, you've taken up walking in his footsteps by repeating his exact edits and edit warring:
Not only are you spread the disruption caused by a chronically policy violating edit warrior, you're repeating his exact same mistakes, both behaviorally and editorially, and tossing in some bogus warnings and a fair amount of hypocrisy to boot. Please think carefully your method of contributing before resuming that line of editing. You're not helping. You're making things worse for Jinxmchue/67.135.49.177, yourself, and the project. FeloniousMonk 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you read my rationale on the talk page for making that edit? It has nothing to do with the reiliability of the source, it has to do with the fact that the cite does not source the statement it is attached to. It is superfluous, and adds new concepts that should be worked into the article on their own. I'll call an RfC on the question, and we'll see what truly neutral editors have to say about it. I will add that I think you should have asked another admin to protect those pages for you. - Crockspot 02:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm admittedly violating what I said about not editing anything but my user pages until later with this, but this is a serious enough issue to warrant it. Monk, you need to provide evidence to back up your accusations of my alleged violations of 3RR, disruption and sockpuppetry or retract every single one of them. I won't be holding my breath waiting for that, though. Jinxmchue 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Then don't do it. You're disrupting the project. Please take the time learn our policies while waiting for your block to expire. FeloniousMonk 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I know the policies and follow them. You and those like you, however, do not and you do everything you can to subvert them and game the system. Then to protect yourselves from criticism, you throw out baseless accusations which you cannot back up with evidence and get your admin buddies to block anyone who disagrees with you. Jinxmchue 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

FIRST

Ok, first show me how the word "baseless" is uncivil. Is it a curse word? Is it a racial slur of some kind? Is it sexist? Does it impugn your heritage or perspicacity? Does it cast terrible aspersions over your character? Does it constitute an attack on your personally?

Perhaps I am just dense, because I do not see it. Please educate me on how the word "baseless" is uncivil. Is the word "groundless" also uncivil? How about the phrase "without merit"? Are you really saying that anyone who disagrees with you and your agenda in any way shape or form whatsoever is to be condemned as uncivil and vilified? Please do enlighten us as to what you really mean and why you said it. This is quite interesting. I honestly had no idea that the word "baseless" was a form of invective or an expletive. I have never seen it listed as such, however, I could be mistaken. Please direct me to reference works where the word "baseless" is so listed.

Drawing from the American Heritage Dictionary, I see that uncivil is the same as discourteous or rude. So it was discourteous to use the word baseless? It was rude? I can assume that if I use the word baseless on network television that word would be bleeped out? Is it on the list of forbidden words of network television and radio censors? Is it on the list of deprecated words and expressions compiled by the Federal Communications Commission? Please provide references for this, if you claim it since I have never heard of it before. Has anyone ever been sued for the use of the word "baseless"?


I see from the article on WP:CIVIL that "Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. " So saying your remarks and complaints were baseless caused you stress? It encouraged conflict? So I should have just let you do whatever you wanted, since otherwise there would be conflict? Any opposition causes conflict and therefore is uncivil? Is that the definition of uncivil in this context? Are you sure you want to press this further?

Here is what the Misplaced Pages article on civility says:

Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:

  • Rudeness

So is the word "baseless" rude? Please explain to me how it is rude.

  • Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap")

Did I do this? I do not believe I did. If you think the comment about a dictionary was in this category, I assure you it was not intended as such. It was mildly sarcastic since I cannot believe you are charging me with incivility for use of the word "baseless". Frankly, I think your charges of incivility are "baseless". And I challenge you to file an RfC on this issue if you want to see what others think.


  • Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (cite as WP:ICA)

Is this what use of the word "baseless" is? If so, I do not see it. Please explain how this could be true.

  • Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."

I did not do this, did I?

  • Lies

Did I say you were lying when I used the word "baseless"? I do not think so, but maybe I missed something. Please show me where I am wrong.

  • Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.

Does the use of the word "baseless" fall in this category? I do not think so, but maybe I am wrong. Please show me how.


More serious examples include:

Is the word "baseless" used as a common taunt? Maybe some schoolyard bullies use this word to taunt others? I never heard of kids chanting "baseless" repeatedly but maybe I had a sheltered upbringing.

How is the word "baseless" a personal attack?

    • Racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs

Is the word "baseless" a racial, ethnic, sexual or religious slur? If so, please explain how.

Is the word "baseless" a profanity?

  • Defacing user pages

Did I deface your use page?

  • Giving users derogatory names via Pagemove vandalism

Did I do this?

  • Indecent suggestions

Does the use of the word "baseless" constitute an indecent suggestion? Please show how this is true.

I am at a loss here. My goodness...--Filll 02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It wasn't the word you used, it was how you presented that word, stating your opinion as unqualified fact. "Your complaints are baseless." That personalizes the dispute. You should have said, "I disagree strongly with your complaints/argument/rationale". Get it? You have now further personalized the dispute by making an assumption that I am promoting my religion. You don't know anything about my religious beliefs. In fact, I really don't have any, beyond believing in some sort of higher power in the universe. I'm not religious at all. Your statement violates AGF. I suggest you back off, and let the RfC run it's course, because you are digging a hole that FM will not be able to save you from. - Crockspot 03:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Good heavens. Now a barely veiled threat...Well I certainly apologize for offending you. I am completely confused about what I did that was so vile, especially since I did not say your complaints ARE baseless, but that they APPEAR baseless. Maybe I should throw a few more weasel words in there, and say something like "possibly maybe in my opinion your arguments might appear to be baseless but I am not sure". Let me state again, without any reservation I apologize unequivocally for somehow having stepped over a bound of propriety by stating that your complaints APPEAR baseless. I now know that it is improper to ever disagree with you. Fair enough. I stand corrected.--Filll 04:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

DI article

I made a suggestion at Talk:Discovery Institute. Let me know if that solves the problem. Guettarda 04:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit of friendly advice, for what it's worth

Crockspot, keeping up with the drama caused by Jinxmchue's bad behavior that's spreading across your talk page and his, may I suggest something in order to minimize the disruption and maintain your reputation? Take a step back from the drama Jinxmchue/User:67.135.49.177 is stirring up. He's chosen a very poor path to trod and continuing down it will earn him nothing but trouble; I'd hate to see you make the same mistake. He's flat wrong on almost every point and level both editorially and behaviorally, He may stubbornly choose to go down in flames but there's no reason to let him drag you down as well. FeloniousMonk 05:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • FM, I really do appreciate that, but I hope that you will also give some friendly advice to Filll as well, regarding his behavior toward me this evening. I have a valid concern, for which I have called an RfC, and have disengaged from there for the evening, yet Filll continues to talk smack about me in the RfC. Do you condone his behavior? He has stated that I will remove all negative material from all ID articles, when in reality, I have edited one citation in one ID-related article, and have engaged in discussion on that article's talk page. I will state this one more time, I do not give a whit about ID, and am not even religious. I see a legitimate NPOV problem, and I am doing the right thing by calling an RfC to get uninvolved editors to take a look at it. Everyone else there seems to have too much of a vested interest to make any discussion productive. Filll's behavior tonight is appalling, and I hope someone will reign him in. - Crockspot 05:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hence my advice to disengage. I'll have a look at Filll's edits and comments. If there's anything untoward, I'll have a similar word with him; my experience has been that he's reasonable and abides by the rules, if a bit gruff. Aren't we all. For the record, as best I can tell by User:67.135.49.177 block log, User:67.135.49.177 still has a number of hours to go before his block expires and yet he's editing now under his Jinxmchue account, a serious violation of WP:BLOCK, WP:POINT and WP:DE. I've warned him and will reissue the block and reset the clock if he continues. You seem to have his ear, perhaps you'd like to have a word with him and get him to settle down and abide by our policies. As it is, he won't last long as he's going. BTW, I'm familiar with article, the source in question, and the facts surrounding the issues, and I think you're mistaken in the points you've made, but that's for another discussion another time. FeloniousMonk 05:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Jinx believes that his block is expired, in good faith, but I will have a word with him. Allow me to restate the problem I have one more time: The source in question poses an argument that the statement in the article does not pose itself. The sentence is a simple statement of what the organization is. That's all. I have no problem if the argument posed by the source was actually stated in the text of the article, and the cite was attached to it. But the sentence that the source is attached to does not say anything about that argument. Does that source even support the sentence that is in the article? Why does no one understand this very simple point I am trying to get across? - Crockspot 05:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)