The Invisible Anon (talk | contribs) |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
'''Keep''' Sometimes people like to stay anon as a social statement, not to hide their identity: by using a consistent name and IP address, this person is providing enough identity for the purposes of Wikipedia. Invisible Anon doesn't seem to be causing any harm: in fact, it seems like others are causing him/her a lot of harm by ganging up and *looking* for various angles of attack. Invisible Anon thus has to spend a lot of time defending his/herself when he/she could be doing editing work. From my short experience on Wikipedia, it's next to impossible to get anyone to address this sort of harassment - especially when admins are involved and can actually use their influence to intensify the harassment. Dissent is healthy, and true NPOV encompasses it. Please stop the beatdown: in fact it would be great if a page were established to track patterns of people who routinely participate in beatdowns. --[[User:Pansophia|Pansophia]] 05:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
'''Keep''' Sometimes people like to stay anon as a social statement, not to hide their identity: by using a consistent name and IP address, this person is providing enough identity for the purposes of Wikipedia. Invisible Anon doesn't seem to be causing any harm: in fact, it seems like others are causing him/her a lot of harm by ganging up and *looking* for various angles of attack. Invisible Anon thus has to spend a lot of time defending his/herself when he/she could be doing editing work. From my short experience on Wikipedia, it's next to impossible to get anyone to address this sort of harassment - especially when admins are involved and can actually use their influence to intensify the harassment. Dissent is healthy, and true NPOV encompasses it. Please stop the beatdown: in fact it would be great if a page were established to track patterns of people who routinely participate in beatdowns. --[[User:Pansophia|Pansophia]] 05:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
:Comment: He would be providing identity if he used the IP address he comes from. Making it appear as though he has a user name is (a bizarre piece of) misdirection, and of course is potentially inconvenient. The wiki handles some things very well, and making an effort to appear as things are not suggests a perversity and intent to deceive that sits poorly with the assumption of good faith that should be makeable. [[User:The Invisible Anon|The Invisible Anon]] 15:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''keep''': Enough said. [[User:Ombudsman|Ombudsman]] 10:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
*'''keep''': Enough said. [[User:Ombudsman|Ombudsman]] 10:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' Who is this person? [[User:The Invisible Anon|The Invisible Anon]] 13:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:12, 27 February 2006
User_talk:86.10.231.219
perverse IP address user pretending to a username, page used more as an article than a talk page, unfair to saddle any subsequent user of this IP with the comments and animus this user has earned (or at the very least, acquired.) Correlations between postings from this address and form Ombudsman(who appears to at least some users as though he is an admin) suggest the possibility of a more direct link than coincidence or comradeship. User page was deleted, perfectly reasonably, DELETE Midgley 22:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - As the anon user has been trying to get me banned for the "subtle vandalism" of suggesting that Midgley was not being anti-semitic when declaring he felt circumcision to be child abuse (but not, as far as I could tell, making any article edits reflecting this!), I should probably not express my opinion as to what should happen to this user's talk page - but I would like to ensure that anyone closing this discussion look at the history of the user page this talk page corresponds to. Michael Ralston 23:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Michael, if you're going to accuse this user of labelling Midgley as antisemitic, you better produce the exact quote. All I can find is: "Here he accuses all jewish people who hold to religious customs of child abuse," which is pretty close to a statement of fact. And if you want to start a campaign against editors who engage in personal attacks, you better include Midgley, who seems to include such an attack in every discussion entry he makes. --Leifern 12:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is irrelevant except as an index of bad faith, and I certainly do not suggest that not eating pork, for instance, is child abuse - nor even not offering children pork, shellfish etc to eat. THe statement is at the very least intended to misdirect. But that is not the argument for this place. Midgley 16:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Michael, if you're going to accuse this user of labelling Midgley as antisemitic, you better produce the exact quote. All I can find is: "Here he accuses all jewish people who hold to religious customs of child abuse," which is pretty close to a statement of fact. And if you want to start a campaign against editors who engage in personal attacks, you better include Midgley, who seems to include such an attack in every discussion entry he makes. --Leifern 12:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Leifern: What is that quote OTHER than a statement that Midgley is anti-semitic? Especially given how it, as Midgley points out, obfuscates his actual position. And I'd be willing to let it drop if he(the anon) would stop saying that statement of his (the one you quoted) is what the AV RfC is about, and stop accusing me of vandalism! Nobody else has been trying to get me banned - just our invisible anon. Michael Ralston 19:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - this MfD for a User Talk page is inappropriate & is not in good faith (as is shown below).
- this MfD has come out of thin air - the applicant Midgley has not engaged in discussion to explain his actions in seeking an MfD
- the User talk page concerned is in proper use as a talk page - as can be seen by visiting it
- it does not satisfy any criteria for deletion
- no evidence of "used more as an article than a talk page" is presented (and there is none because this talk page is in proper use as a talk page)
- no other evidence is presented justifying deletion - and deletion is not justified
- a third party user has already intervened over a prior "thin air" attempt by an anon (sockpuppet?) to list the talk page for deletion [[1]]
- the third party stated in the edit history:-
- "rv: user talk pages are not appropriate candidates for AfD; the nomination seems to serve no other purpose than to condone the vandalism of medical articles that the Invisible Anon has been countering"
- This MfD appears not in good faith and appears to be harrassment:-
- this is not just because the applicant Midgley is (as is regrettably all too frequent), thin on evidence but, as usual, heavy on ascerbic comments
- simultaneously with this MfD the applicant Midgley is also running an AfD here [[2]]
- this harrassment all appears to be retaliation for my posting a report [[3]] on AN/I about harrassment and disruption by Michael Ralston
- Michael Ralston confirms above he wants the talk page deleted
- this MfD follows from an anonymous IP made AfD only hours earlier which was reverted by a third party editor [[4]]
- Talk - The Invisible Anon 04:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- I find it exceptionally improbable that Midgley is harassing you for your attempt at getting me banned. The sum total of my conversation to him on this topic was to state, on that talk page, that it doesn't belong in AfD because it's not an article, and that it does belong in MfD - which it does, even if MfD produces an overwhelming "keep" consensus. As for calling Ombudsman a "third party", you should at least acknowledge that he shares a strong POV with you, and is hardly uninterested on this topic. Michael Ralston 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I must now vote Delete despite my conflict of interest, as the Anon has indicated that my statement that whoever closes this should look at the history of his userpage constitutes an endorsement of deletion - this tells me he is fully aware of some sort of rule violation that he's committing with this. Michael Ralston 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Absolute keep. I have no idea why this user doesn't want to register a username and am struggling to think of one - but that is absolutely irrelevant to this question. Midgley, whose idea of contributing to an encyclopedia is to write an opinion piece as if it were fact and then personally attack everyone who disagrees with him, is merely trying to muzzle this editor. --Leifern 12:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: As pointed out, Ombudsman kindly saved wiki-users the trouble of debating, and admins the trouble of removing a tag from the article in question. That also is perhaps a matter for discussion elsewhere but it is worth noting that the name Ombudsman is a word of some significance and that the user does not have such powers and is not an admin. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.10.231.219&diff=prev&oldid=41083048 Midgley 16:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it was this diff: [5], not the one you linked. You linked the tag being added. Michael Ralston 19:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's an IP page, not a User page. If he wants a real User page, let him register a goddamned account like everyone else. --Calton | Talk 02:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Sometimes people like to stay anon as a social statement, not to hide their identity: by using a consistent name and IP address, this person is providing enough identity for the purposes of Wikipedia. Invisible Anon doesn't seem to be causing any harm: in fact, it seems like others are causing him/her a lot of harm by ganging up and *looking* for various angles of attack. Invisible Anon thus has to spend a lot of time defending his/herself when he/she could be doing editing work. From my short experience on Wikipedia, it's next to impossible to get anyone to address this sort of harassment - especially when admins are involved and can actually use their influence to intensify the harassment. Dissent is healthy, and true NPOV encompasses it. Please stop the beatdown: in fact it would be great if a page were established to track patterns of people who routinely participate in beatdowns. --Pansophia 05:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: He would be providing identity if he used the IP address he comes from. Making it appear as though he has a user name is (a bizarre piece of) misdirection, and of course is potentially inconvenient. The wiki handles some things very well, and making an effort to appear as things are not suggests a perversity and intent to deceive that sits poorly with the assumption of good faith that should be makeable. The Invisible Anon 15:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- keep: Enough said. Ombudsman 10:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Who is this person? The Invisible Anon 13:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)