Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:21, 26 August 2005

Old talk archived 1 2 3 4 5

Bankpuppet Patrol

Thanks for the rv. When I first signed-up for the bank thing, I guess I didn't realize how much spamming laid ahead. I don't mind being a troll-magnet; at least we'll know where to watch. ;-) hydnjo talk 18:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I ordinarily hesitate to rv people's talk pages but the current troll is making a pest of himself and is trying to utilize talk pages as a springboard for his nomic. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No mind on my talk page. I'll even drop bits of cheese if it would help. BTW, what would help? Regards, hydnjo talk 22:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

-Ril-

Just to remind you that you didn't sign your last post on -Ril-'s talk page. For what it's worth, I think your action, although drastic and highly regrettable, was probably both inevitable and wise --Doc (?) 07:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. This looks a lot like an admin throwing their weight around. It would seem to have a lot to do with the RfC Ril brought against UninvitedCompany. I realise that by saying this, I risk being blocked too. If Ril is in need of censure, and I'm not saying he isn't, we have a court that can give him his show trial. -- Grace Note

Thanks for your note. I know you feel that way. I understand your feelings and to some extent I do share them. There are certainly editors here who it's clear are not aiming to improve the encyclopaedia. (There are others who are vexatious sometimes but have a good aim though, and the distinction between the two should be clearly marked.) I just don't think admins should arrogate huge powers to themselves, given that we have a dispute process (particularly when there is a suggestion that they have acted out of personal animus), and I believe, however foolhardy that belief, that miscreants must be given every chance, with the greatest assumption of good faith that we can muster (and as a consequence I am sometimes accused of being too friendly to trolls -- when the truth is that I feel that all must be given a fair chance before feeling the hammer of the law, whether I like the troll personally or not). I daresay you're right -Ril- is not rescuable (although I doubt he/she is Lir -- -Ril- seems to have a sense of humour) but ultimately the need for a rush to judgement is probably personal to you rather than something desperately required for Misplaced Pages's health. -- Grace Note

With thousands of competent writers who are perfectly willing to follow project norms, I see no reason to spend time rehabilitating miscreants. Just give them a choice of adhering to policy or leave. All must adhere to policy: bureaucrats, admins, users, IP's. The policies are designed to facilitate the organization and presentation of human knowledge for the benefit of all humankind. Those who want to help with this are welcome here, the rest can leave. Uncle Ed 14:28, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

-Ril- Violating Ban

ALERT User:RonaldTaril has confessed to being a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. He is violating his ban. Agriculture 19:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I shall leave this matter to other admins rather than pursuing it further myself. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

And I see User:SlimVirgin has already done it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't really figured out what I think about the block, but I was wondering, since you're fairly involved with Ril, if you could add your evidence to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/-Ril-/Evidence? I'm hoping with this arbcom case we'll finally get some lasting solution. Dmcdevit·t 22:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Despite what Ril says, I'm not that involved with his editing because we have relatively little overlap in interests. As far as I know there is no article where we have both edited the body of the article text. My role in this matter is largely that of a disinterested admin trying to maintain some semblance of order. While I have reviewed his contribution history for 3RR violations and overall editing patterns, and it is clear to me that he reverts often and discusses but rarely, I have little to say about the substance of his contributions. There does seem to be a progressive deterioration of civility in his dealings, over time. I think that one of the mistakes that User:RickK made was to become a personal authority on and personal prosecutor of every vandal that he blocked. I don't want to do that. Other people, whose experience with Ril extends back farther, and who have more personal stake in the matter, are better equipped to bring evidence to the RFA. I have no quarrel with Ril personally since his actions affecting me have been limited to the transparently retaliatory RFC and the transparently retaliatory comments he has littered about the Wiki. Neither of these has done me any harm. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Ironically, I think the same of myself. I was just some admin on CSD patrol when I came to warn him about his disruptive, bad-faith speedy tagging, and had a very disappointing interaction. With his talk page on my watchlist sincethen, I've come to the realization that something hasto be doneabout him. So when the arbcom case came up, I added my little bit to it. Since then I've been a little dismayed that so many have complained about Ril, but only I and another editor added evidence (I've even researched and added diffs that I wasn't involved in). You don't have to be a party, or even involved, to supply a few diffs as evidence. Dmcdevit·t 03:54, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Please be aware of this

When I know what to ask, I know how to find the answer

I did this WAS 4.250 05:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk

Ah, thanks. I thought I had seen people doing the same before, but I think I got User talk:Jimbo Wales confused with Talk:Main Page. Easy mistake. ] 20:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: m:Spam blacklist

What's the ban on petitiononline.com for? Some articles have legitimate links to it, and now it's extremely difficult to edit them. --Zetawoof 04:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It was requested by another user to deal with ongoing bot-assisted vandalism adding a link to some Elvis Presley survey, both to Elvis-related pages and some others. I searched and edited all the articles that contained the link and thought I got rid of all of them. Of over 100 articles with links, the link was justified in only two or three cases and even in these the encyclopedic value was debatable. In those cases I left the reference in but de-linked it. There was some discussion at WP:AN. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks talk page

I left you a new message on your wikibooks talk page. MShonle 01:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Intentional libel

Please state clearly whether the restatement of your comment on User_talk:24ip is acceptable to you, or if not, why not. There have been several attempts to restate a point you sought to make, without libelling anyone. Restoration of any unnecessary questionable statements or libel is dangerous to Wikimedia, and as you are a pseudonym, you are transferring that liability to the Foundation. The statements did not seem necessary to make the point that you were trying to make, and appear to be malicious. This is definitely one of the grounds for a good libel suit, especially if the comments are recently restored by friends or allies or the person libelling.

The following is the recent history of User_talk:24ip:

"# (cur) (last) 23:49, 25 August 2005 142.177.92.106 (This version contains the point that UninvitedCompany explicitly made, without any questionable assertions; Protecting such assertions is taking responsibility for them, legally; Do not revert again)

1. (cur) (last) 03:35, 22 August 2005 Essjay (Unprotected)
2. (cur) (last) 15:04, 20 August 2005 Essjay (Template:Vprotect)
3. (cur) (last) 15:03, 20 August 2005 Essjay m (Reverted edits by 142.177.103.185 to last version by Raul654)
4. (cur) (last) 13:53, 20 August 2005 142.177.103.185 (restoring libellous comments increases the probability of their being the subject of a lawsuit, as it is a deliberate editorial decision - do NOT do this)
5. (cur) (last) 01:00, 20 August 2005 Raul654 m (Reverted edits by 142.177.6.146 to last version by UninvitedCompany)
6. (cur) (last) 00:52, 20 August 2005 142.177.6.146 (removing dangerous libel by UninvitedCompany)
7. (cur) (last) 20:45, 9 August 2005 UninvitedCompany (user name)"

While your unwise comments may have been "off the cuff", and you may not have asked User:Raul654 and User:Essjay to intervene, in case you asked for the questionable statements to be restored and protected, creating extreme liability for Wikimedia, you may wish to formally withdraw the comments or indicate that the version that presently sits at User_talk:24ip makes the point you wished to make, without requiring any statements that assign motives or guess at identities, or make extremely questionable statements that seem to not exist on the public record.

The whole history of that page, which includes words like "paeodophile", suggests it might best be deleted. Policy for that is debated at Misplaced Pages:deletion policy and something regarding this has been added.

If it was your intent to shift liability for your comments to Wikimedia, you are succeeding, and shame on you.

If it was merely an error of judgement on your part, it's time to tell your friends exactly that.