Wikipedia is vandalised and biased by cliques of agenda driven editors censoring those they disagree with and distorting our article content in order to impose their personal beliefs on everyone else. Anyone who tries to correct inaccuracies, balance coverage, or uphold the core neutral point of view policy and its requirement that we include a variety of notable viewpoints is stalked, harassed, and intimidated into silence. This thuggish behavior and the disgusting damage it does to the integrity of Wikipedia has been encouraged by dishonest and corrupt admins. It has also been condoned by an incompent arbcom committee that can’t be bothered to enforce our most basic and fundamental policies and values.
|
||||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
remember our secret cabal, crew, whatever?
Check out Martin Seemungal, Cocktion, Buntil, and Matthias Pliessnig. Since those articles are created by you they are probably not about notable subjects, so I didn't remove the recently added tags. Hey, I got some myself too! (Check my history.) Drmies (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Groupies! I notice the deleted article on Toe Hole, or whatever that group is called, still replaces your user page now and again. You mentioned something about blocking me Doc, but of course you need to run the RfA gauntlet first! What's taking so long? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Talking
You seem to feel that I don't talk to you enough [1]. But then you do stuff like this [2]. I've already told you that you can't have it both ways. I can't force you to be polite. But I can and will refuse to converse with you on my talk page while you remain rude William M. Connolley (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was trying to discuss climate modeling (a redirect to the Global Climate Model) with you. My understanding was that you had some expertise on that subject. If you don't want to engage in collegial discussion with me related to article work, okay. People have disagreements sometimes and I like to leave differences in the past. If you want to hold a grudge and remain bitter, there's not much I can do about it. I don't have any problem with you other than requesting that you be more collaborative and respectful of your fellow editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Escalating dispute?
Please tell me how I escalated the dispute since it started before January? It deals with multiple pages without any relationship between then except the same group of people using inappropriate tactics. I am also not the only one this has happened to by that group. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- What are the other disputes? The one I saw was over a particular description of Oscar Wilde. If you insist on following through with Arbcom I suspect you will be restricted. That's what they do. They stop activity that's become disruptive by sanctioning whoever is at the center of it. Their investigations and decisions have very little to do with who's right or wrong. And they don't do much to untie knots. They simply smoosh whoever is "causing" the problem. Your approach is pretty confrontational Ottava and the feuding has spread to numerous boards. So I'm suggesting you slow down a bit and try to sort some of the disputes out by getting outside opinions or let them go. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please read. I also mentioned it at the ANI thread and on other threads. It seems like few of the responders want to actually read the links given which show a very long history of problematic actions. I have been receiving prompting from dozens of people to take this to ArbCom for the past month. I have sent many emails to Arbitrators from the beginning of the recent reoccurance of the problems. This is not something I do lightly or without advice. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- What outcome would you desire from Arbcom? You're making accusations against several editors, and my experience suggests that our consensus guidelines tend to favor whoever has numbers. I have limited experience with the Fringe board, but I my experience make me tend to be sympathetic towards your complaints. But your go it alone strategy doesn't seem prudent to me and I don't see an outcome that's going to be contructive to your interests. If you'd like more independent eyes on those boards and opinions on the disputes why not ask for that? Isn't that how disputes are worked out here? Arbcom looks at behavior and hands down sanctions. So what sanctions would be appropriate? You already have Jehochman, who is a very experienced editors, trying to put you under editing restrictions. The course you're taking doesn't seem like one with an outcome that's going to be favorable to you or the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- The outcome I want is simply - probation and desysopping. All of them who are admins have abused their authority and used the position in order to further intimidation. A probation would be to keep them from backing each other up in such a manner with 24 hour blocks if they continue to do so. They have abused consensus, pushed things that were directly against policy, and caused many problems with their actions. If you think that allowing that group to continue to operate in the manner they do is favorable to the encyclopedia, then you haven't looked at what they have been doing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, "go it alone"? Where did you get that idea? I constantly work with dozens of editors when I write my pages, and I was not the only one attacked. At the Persian Empire page, they first pulled their games in edit warring against Wizardman even though he told them what they were doing lacked consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- By "go it alone" I was referring to your Arbcom request. I reiterate my suggestion that you try to resolve the disputes by bringing in a broader sample of opinion and using dispute resolution means that are content focused rather than enforcement and behavior focused. You seem adamant about pursuing an arbcom hearing, but their decision is likely to be adverse to your editing interests as much as anyone elses. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- So, you want me to get a bunch of people to meat puppet for me at my ArbCom request when I am putting it up solely because others do the same to me? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ottava, have I said or suggested that anywhere? My suggestion is to withdraw the Arbcom request because it escalates the dispute and is unlikely to bring about a helpful outcome. You've brought attention to the disputes and the issues of concern. Now try to work through them calmly and respectfully. Escalating confrontations, as you now seem to be trying to do with me, isn't always helpful and can become self-defeating. If you insist on following through at Arbcom that's up to you. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just offering my opinion and some suggestions.
- I understand you're frustrated and I've tried to note that I respect where you're coming from and that I think you have some legitimate concerns. My issue is with your approach to get the situation improved. Arbcom and enforcement noticeboards result in long drawn out drama fests, when I think your best interest is in getting assistance resolving the content disputes so you can get back to article editing. I understand that cabals of editors and/or admins can be problematic, but a large scale confrontation with several editors is also problematic. They have a right to be here and to edit also. So the solution is to get all of you to deescalate and to work through the disagreements appropriately without personal attacks or incivility so we can all focus on collegial collaboration and improving the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- CoM, please read my statement at Arbcom. Since before last January, a group of editors have been joining together and causing problems. They have used their group to intimidate and bully others in order to push views that directly contradict our policies. It has come to ANI and other places many, many times. I have also had many direct communications with Arbitrators over the matter since the beginning of September because of their edit warring on Persian Empire and other problems. I have been told by over 25 people through email, messenger, IRC, and the rest that ArbCom is necessary and that I should do so. I was only holding back because I wanted to finish the WikiCup and real life matters. However, they continue to cause disruptions so it needs to end via ArbCom. You don't seem to understand the issue if you can think it is capable of "deescalating". A group of 8 people do not simply back down. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good luck Ottava. I appreciate your taking the time to discuss the issue with me. I don't like your odds. But I'll be folowing the matter with interest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- There was massive edit warring and a major page is gone because of it, so, there is a lot of content damage they are responsible for and ArbCom has known about it for a while. I am sure the bravado of a few people will be ignored and the actual case will be focused on. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you don't think that page should be deleted I suggest posting a neutrally worded request for outside opinions on the content noticeboard. I don't see how Arbcom can desysop of ban those editors over it. Their close collaboration may be problematic, but I don't see particular behaviors that are punishable. And as far as addressing the disruption related to the disputes, you're likely to bear the brunt of any enforcement actions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- There was massive edit warring and a major page is gone because of it, so, there is a lot of content damage they are responsible for and ArbCom has known about it for a while. I am sure the bravado of a few people will be ignored and the actual case will be focused on. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good luck Ottava. I appreciate your taking the time to discuss the issue with me. I don't like your odds. But I'll be folowing the matter with interest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- CoM, please read my statement at Arbcom. Since before last January, a group of editors have been joining together and causing problems. They have used their group to intimidate and bully others in order to push views that directly contradict our policies. It has come to ANI and other places many, many times. I have also had many direct communications with Arbitrators over the matter since the beginning of September because of their edit warring on Persian Empire and other problems. I have been told by over 25 people through email, messenger, IRC, and the rest that ArbCom is necessary and that I should do so. I was only holding back because I wanted to finish the WikiCup and real life matters. However, they continue to cause disruptions so it needs to end via ArbCom. You don't seem to understand the issue if you can think it is capable of "deescalating". A group of 8 people do not simply back down. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- So, you want me to get a bunch of people to meat puppet for me at my ArbCom request when I am putting it up solely because others do the same to me? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- By "go it alone" I was referring to your Arbcom request. I reiterate my suggestion that you try to resolve the disputes by bringing in a broader sample of opinion and using dispute resolution means that are content focused rather than enforcement and behavior focused. You seem adamant about pursuing an arbcom hearing, but their decision is likely to be adverse to your editing interests as much as anyone elses. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- What outcome would you desire from Arbcom? You're making accusations against several editors, and my experience suggests that our consensus guidelines tend to favor whoever has numbers. I have limited experience with the Fringe board, but I my experience make me tend to be sympathetic towards your complaints. But your go it alone strategy doesn't seem prudent to me and I don't see an outcome that's going to be contructive to your interests. If you'd like more independent eyes on those boards and opinions on the disputes why not ask for that? Isn't that how disputes are worked out here? Arbcom looks at behavior and hands down sanctions. So what sanctions would be appropriate? You already have Jehochman, who is a very experienced editors, trying to put you under editing restrictions. The course you're taking doesn't seem like one with an outcome that's going to be favorable to you or the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please read. I also mentioned it at the ANI thread and on other threads. It seems like few of the responders want to actually read the links given which show a very long history of problematic actions. I have been receiving prompting from dozens of people to take this to ArbCom for the past month. I have sent many emails to Arbitrators from the beginning of the recent reoccurance of the problems. This is not something I do lightly or without advice. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- CoM - there were two consensus gatherings. There was edit warring for multiple weeks. There were long term attacks by them on multiple pages, and that was not the only page they operated in that manner on. The reason why it was noticed is that Persian Empire is a major page where they previously kept most of it to obscure pages. It was also noticed because one of the users, Wizardman, was an arbitrator and not just some new person that could have been bullied out of existence like they did before. However, it deals with many, many pages besides just one. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- If there's edit warring the page can be protected while additional opinions are sought. A straw poll or other consensus determining method is implemented. Your approach to editing tends to be confrontational. That sometimes happens when people get frustrated, but several editors have suggested you tone it down. If you aren't willing to do that and escalate to the Arbcom proceeding I think you will be sanctioned. I'm familiar with the problems associated with packs of editors trying to impose their POVs (see top of my talk page) but there's no magic wand that Arbcom can wave to solve the problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- There was a straw poll - no consensus to change the page. Followed by edit warring. Followed by protection. Followed by straw poll - no consensus to change the page. Followed by edit warring. Followed by protection. New straw poll shows no consensus to change the page and they edit warred it out again. Child of Midnight, please actually look into things instead of just responding without. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- If there's edit warring the page can be protected while additional opinions are sought. A straw poll or other consensus determining method is implemented. Your approach to editing tends to be confrontational. That sometimes happens when people get frustrated, but several editors have suggested you tone it down. If you aren't willing to do that and escalate to the Arbcom proceeding I think you will be sanctioned. I'm familiar with the problems associated with packs of editors trying to impose their POVs (see top of my talk page) but there's no magic wand that Arbcom can wave to solve the problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your comments here I hope it has the right effect. I used WP:3RR here in an attempt to highlight a problem. I don't respond to personal attacks anymore, or posts containing them. The level of incivility that is now considered ok and the non-stop assumptions of bad faith is just mind bending. At least one Admin suggested that if accusations are being made they should be backed up or removed, your approch would be equally welcome if it has the effect your hoping for. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 20:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- As I thought, and now have come to expect, regardless of what editors are asked, the accusations keep on coming! --Domer48'fenian' 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Those articles seem to be very contentious. Frustrations are obviously high all around. I agree that the confrontational approach and personal attacks aren't helping. Could you be a little more thorough in addressing the concerns brought up by Jdorney. Some of your responses are so short it's hard to divine exactly what your objection is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You are right that the articles seem to be very contentious, but that is no reason for incivility. "Frustrations" as an excuse have already been offered to condone some of the personal attacks I've had to put up with and yet I have remained civil. I have not allowed "Frustrations" to get the better of me, because I don't allow myself to get frustrated. Lets be honest, when you get the amount of personal abuse I get, breif is best when it comes to comments. Review some of my recent talk page discussions, thats the great thing about page histories. It's the editors that make the articles contentious, not the other way round. If you just happen to notice any accusations being leveled at me, it would be nice if you could ask for a diff to support it? Here is a diff free discussion i decided not to get involved in, because comments like this are a real put off for me.LOL. Now that I've burned and bended your ear enough, I'll apologise for taking up your time, and will just be on my way. Thanks again for comments again. --Domer48'fenian' 22:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Malleus certainly has a way with words. :) I hope your editing experience improves. Getting attacked all the time is no fun. Been there done that. If you have article editing interests that are free from politics that helps. Although I've seen some food fights at culinary articles that have been pretty wild... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no real problems editing, and the personal abuse I get is to my mind based on an inability or as an alternative to presenting logical arguments. Can’t find a source or reference to support your views, start an argument. Throwing out a few accusations usually does the trick to deflect a discussion. All I’d like to see is an editor being challenged to support their claims, and failing to do so, being told to comment on edits and not editors. While you can always try to fight fire with fire, I prefer to use cold water. By not responding to insults, you can remove the fuel they need, but prevention is a much better option. At the end of the day it’s the project that suffers and it just discourages content editors. A well, there is me ear bashing again!!!! --Domer48'fenian' 12:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Not wanting to fill up the AfD page with side discussions...
I believe we have a different opinion on what constitutes significant coverage. What you put is more of an indication of notability for Samuel Browning, which redirects to David "Race" Bannon#Bannon's arrest. --kelapstick (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed he's notable too. But the section I quoted is about Bulshido.net, it's owner, and the role these subjects played in outing Browning. It gives pretty substantial coverage to that. Combined with the other sources I think it's enough. I notice that this topic has been discussed on the net in relation to Wikipedia and Ashida Kim, which was AfDed numerous times. I'm not up on what all the hubbub is about. I've also indicated that a merge would be okay since there is an appropriate target. But deleting well sourced content about the organizations and its notable accomplishments doesn't seem helpful to me in building an encyclopedia representing the sum of human knowledge. Don't make us ignorant of these subjects K! We want to know stuff!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't see any more mention of the site than a sentence (if there is more behind that paywall, than all the better). If there is more, than it should have been provided and worked into the article (sometimes offline sources are difficult to work with). I would likely support a merge, but as it sits now the only thing that I can gather from the sources provided is that bullshido.net is a website, and is used for outing fraudulent martial artists.--kelapstick (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- And who the owner is and where he's from. And that it's played substantial role in outing a notable figure. And whatever other content is in the various sources, for example how popular it is, when it was established, etc. etc. :) What's on tap for the weekend? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- If all he/website did was out a notable figure, than he isn't notable by WP:BLP1E. I would support an article about Browning before the site, probably would anyway as I think he has the coverage. You know, I was once in the Thompson Citizen for participating in Operation Red Nose, they even put in a picture. Does that mean that I pass the GNG? Working Sunday, not sure what I am doing tomorrow...we shall see.--kelapstick (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- So you worked for an escort service? How interesting. But no, you're still not notable. And remember, it takes more than one event! It's best if you are cited in numerous sources over several years the way Bullshido.net has been. And even then we may merge you if you aren't independently notable enough for more than a mention in the Canadian troublemakers in the United States article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Bullshido.net has been mentioned. Not given in depth coverage, or do you mean that they were the source of information for the newspaper, in which case is bullshido.net a reliable source? Maybe I should be getting my sources from them as they are completely qualified to provide reliable information to a reliable source, maybe we should use the bullshido.net website to establish notability, despite it's not being independent. My head is starting to hurt. If I wanted to I could get mentioned in the local paper here, I had the offer to be a judge at the rodeo parade, I would have for sure made the Mason Valley News, that would be multiple international sources for multiple events. Then I would pass the GNG, there could be no dispute, why didn't I take that offer, I went to Vegas instead.--kelapstick (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- So you worked for an escort service? How interesting. But no, you're still not notable. And remember, it takes more than one event! It's best if you are cited in numerous sources over several years the way Bullshido.net has been. And even then we may merge you if you aren't independently notable enough for more than a mention in the Canadian troublemakers in the United States article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- If all he/website did was out a notable figure, than he isn't notable by WP:BLP1E. I would support an article about Browning before the site, probably would anyway as I think he has the coverage. You know, I was once in the Thompson Citizen for participating in Operation Red Nose, they even put in a picture. Does that mean that I pass the GNG? Working Sunday, not sure what I am doing tomorrow...we shall see.--kelapstick (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- And who the owner is and where he's from. And that it's played substantial role in outing a notable figure. And whatever other content is in the various sources, for example how popular it is, when it was established, etc. etc. :) What's on tap for the weekend? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't see any more mention of the site than a sentence (if there is more behind that paywall, than all the better). If there is more, than it should have been provided and worked into the article (sometimes offline sources are difficult to work with). I would likely support a merge, but as it sits now the only thing that I can gather from the sources provided is that bullshido.net is a website, and is used for outing fraudulent martial artists.--kelapstick (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you are interested about the connection between Ashida Kim and Bullshido.net, I have outlined why there were multiple AfDs about this article. This defaming BLP was kept after multiple AfD debates because a group of editors believed that he was notable, even though there lacked significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (For most context, see Uncle G (talk · contribs)'s comment at a DRV). In the first AfD of this article, Ashida Kim himself nominated his own article for deletion. Reading his nomination will reveal the connection between him and Bullshido.net and how the Wikipedia article about him was a blatant defamation. See this archived link of the "Ashida Kim" article in 2005, which is a major BLP violation.
DGG (talk · contribs)'s comment at the final AfD, which resulted in a delete, is an objective summary of why Ashida Kim was ultimately deleted. DGG wrote, Looking at current and previous versions of the article, and at the sources, and the discussions, this is clearly a negative BLP with inadequate sourcing. I cannot imagine that if it had come to us fresh in this state now for the first time, that it would not be quickly deleted without much argument. I am generally very reluctant to give much weight to the subject's views with respect to notability, but in this case he is complaining not just of notability but fairness, and he seems to be correct. I am , frankly, amazed at what was said during some of the earllier afds, particularly the 1st one in 2005. Delete, and courtesy blank this and all previous AfD discussions.
I oppose a merge to Bullshido because both Bullshido.net and Bullshido lack significant coverage in reliable sources. Both are composed of original research, and both do not belong here. I plan to AfD Bullshido at the end of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination).
This article also cannot be merged to Samuel Browning, since Browning does not have enough coverage to pass WP:BIO. The only sources about him are the sources that are about how he exposed David "Race" Bannon; not sufficient to establish notability per WP:BLP1E. Furthermore, according to Slideyfoot (talk · contribs), Samuel Browning is not the owner of Bullshido.net: "[t]he site is actually run by Neal Fletcher, not Browning". Therefore, even if Samuel Browning were notable, this website cannot be merged since it is only tangentially related to Browning. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate the explanation. I'm still not clear on why there is such a strong push to delete the article on the website. There isn't an enormous amount of coverage, but there is some substantial coverage in reliable independent sources (and I don't think it's fair to describe it as "mentions"), and the site and its owner were involved in a notable outing. It's also been cited in other sources apart from that incident. So I'm just not getting why it's important to delete this article on this website that has received some coverage? I recognize that it is in a gray area, all joking aside, as far as whether it meets guidelines or not, but my preference is to lean toward preservation unless there is some compelling interest (advertising, difficult to maintain, BLP issues) to delete something. I also like to crush Drmies and Kelapstick by winning disputes with them when our views differ. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- As I said above, the owner is not Browning, the person who exposed David "Race" Bannon and is the person covered in the sources that you are referring to. Browning is only a member, while Neal Fletcher is the owner.
Why should this article get deleted? It lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The article is filled with original research and fails Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. There are no merge targets because a) Bullshido is a non-notable topic that has the same OR problems as this one. b) Samuel Browning fails WP:BIO and meets WP:BLP1E. c) David "Race" Bannon – The article about Banning should be about himself; it should not discuss a website that is only tangential to his life.
I strongly disagree that the sources provide "substantial coverage". Substantial coverage means that the topic is discussed throughout an entire source or at least a substantial portion of the source. A trivial mention that provides a little background about a different topic does not constitute significant coverage.
Crushing Drmies and Kelapstick? No, I think their superior arguments are karate chopping yours to shreds. ;) But of course I'm not an unbiased judge of all this. Cunard (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- CoM, I hate to disagree with you on your own talkpage, so let us pretend that I don't agree with Cunard. Anyway, since I am currently overlooking the Gulf of Mexico, where the water is clear and blue, the beer is cold, and Bama is beating Arkansas, I feel extraordinarily generous towards you and others who wish to crush me. After all your weak arguments are blown away like so much sand in the wind, after what you think of as strong argumentative foundations are revealed to be nothing more than whirling eddies in a strong current, I will not gloat and I will not laugh, but, in the spirit of friendship, I will offer you a spot in the hot tub, and share a beer with you and some blackened fish. My regards from the coast, Drmies (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- As I said above, the owner is not Browning, the person who exposed David "Race" Bannon and is the person covered in the sources that you are referring to. Browning is only a member, while Neal Fletcher is the owner.
Some issues
Remain on the Sustainability discussion page and article. Your discussion voice is requested. skip sievert (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- There are too many other article to work on than to bother with the incivility and nastiness on that one. Sorry. The article certainly needs lots of work. But if several editors like it the way it is, then so be it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose most special interest groups like it when people say that. skip sievert (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
A fantastic user who has left Wikipedia...--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- No note on why he or she left I noticed. Easy come easy go? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- See here. Bongomatic 16:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link Bongo. I've thought about clearing my watchlist for that sort of reason. Time to move on to new territory? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- You're a sui generis content creator and windmill-tilter. I'm a creature of habit. When I want less, I just spend less time doing the same old thing. Bongomatic 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link Bongo. I've thought about clearing my watchlist for that sort of reason. Time to move on to new territory? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- See here. Bongomatic 16:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
a dress
I saw this and thought you might be interested --Snowded TALK 10:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. I prefer the bacon bra. But I still think it goes best with eggs or on a sandwich with avocado. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Law fought the . . .
and the . . . won. Bongomatic 05:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- <blink> I suppose the law (as opposed to just Law), won....--kelapstick (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Reading between the lines it looks like Law disclosed who we was to people more or less knowing it would come out. I'm not sure why. I think pushing people to the shadows and then acting shocked when it comes out that they have a history is a bit of a joke. Participating in RfAs I would say most or at least many of them have undisclosed histories.
- When a frequent editor disappears, do we assume they've left for good or that they are editing under a new account? In recent discussions very experienced and powerful editors have suggested that reemerging under a new identity is basically assumed and accepted. I've long suggested that encouraging transparency and accountability would be better, but that's not the way people want to set things up. Oh well. Interesting.
- I like Law. I like Pastor Theo/ Ecoleetage too. I don't agree with all of their actions any more than I agree with anyone else all the time. But they certainly did good work to benefit Wikipedia. Shouldn't that be the standard by which editors are judged? They did a much better job then many other admins and editors playing politics and pushing POVs. Anyway, the politics and game playing here is ridiculous. I can't believe how hard it is to just edit articles and contribute content without getting caught up in the POV pushing and MMPORG circus. Frustrating. Oh well. What are you hiding Bongo? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with your sentiments for the most part. And I "like" lots of editors who I don't like at all—by which I mean I hope they stick around and continue doing what they're doing on the content side even if they annoy the cr@p out of me in other ways. What am I hiding? Nothing on WP, that's for sure. I ran across an incredibly interesting editor here (who ought to have a WP page about him) who argues that even small amounts of anonymous data with sufficient tagging to correlate it makes us all totally traceable. So probably, nothing anywhere. What about you? Bongomatic 17:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I try to be pretty straightforward, but with all the game playing and wacky rules it's sometimes tricky. I feel fortunate to have a sense of humor about it all, because this place is nuts and it takes all I've got just to maintain some sanity. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with your sentiments for the most part. And I "like" lots of editors who I don't like at all—by which I mean I hope they stick around and continue doing what they're doing on the content side even if they annoy the cr@p out of me in other ways. What am I hiding? Nothing on WP, that's for sure. I ran across an incredibly interesting editor here (who ought to have a WP page about him) who argues that even small amounts of anonymous data with sufficient tagging to correlate it makes us all totally traceable. So probably, nothing anywhere. What about you? Bongomatic 17:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I like Law. I like Pastor Theo/ Ecoleetage too. I don't agree with all of their actions any more than I agree with anyone else all the time. But they certainly did good work to benefit Wikipedia. Shouldn't that be the standard by which editors are judged? They did a much better job then many other admins and editors playing politics and pushing POVs. Anyway, the politics and game playing here is ridiculous. I can't believe how hard it is to just edit articles and contribute content without getting caught up in the POV pushing and MMPORG circus. Frustrating. Oh well. What are you hiding Bongo? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Mmmmmmmm
Looks good. Bongomatic 08:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting article. I like regional foods like that. Fun. Thanks for the link. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisting
This is notice of relisting at AfD of an article you commented on one year ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeeChat (2nd nomination) Miami33139 (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking of AfDs, I think you should weigh in on this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pork client. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Tit for tat
Hi, CoM. Just ignore the frivolous provocation. --Caspian blue 01:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Caspian blue, long time no see. How have you been? I don't see our mutual friend around much either. A loss if he's not around, but maybe he is editing under a different identity? That seems to be quite common, especially among admins. :)
- Sorry for not being more helpful on the city article. I'm not great with all the demands and specificities of meeting Wikipedia's grading process. I'm more concerned with having interesting, balanced and well written articles. :)
- Speaking of which, all these dramas have really cut down on my contributions. You suggest I ignore them, but experience dictates that the mud slinging sticks and the lies take a toll. Just look at Sandstein's abusive behavior which he still hasn't apologized for. He's also made no effort to correct the many inaccuracies and falsehoods he states. So maybe it's worth fighting some of these battles?
- Admittedly, I'm not the best at engaging in them since I treat them as the ridiculous nonsense they are (I'm holding fast to the naive assumption that we're here to collaborate on encyclopedia building), but no one's perfect! We are all quite set in our ways. Old dog, new tricks and such. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1) I'm good. Don't worry about the city article. Many have helped and copy-edited. 2) The "mutual friend" would not consider me his friend, but his absence is really a loss of Wikipedia. He sometimes edited as an IP user, but per his character, he may feel betrayed by the community. That is really regretful. He may need more time going back to the pace that he used to do. 3) Admins' socking seems to be a current trend, but well..some of "former" admins may need to still lash out against the rightful decisions. It is funny they blame ArbCom for their wrongdoings and think of themselves as ArbCom's martyrs...That's why I suggest you to just ignore the all silliness-Caspian blue 02:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I used to refer to another editor as being Yoda-like, but you're making a good case for your own Jedi designation! :) Thanks for the encouragement and sage advice. I appreciate it. As I'm hard headed, it may not have much effect. We'll see. :)
- Wikipedia is set up to encourage deception. I just had a very long argument on ANI advocating for an approach that encourages leniency in allowing reform and promoting forgiveness for mistakes instead of expecting people to establish new accounts and looking the other way as long as no issues re-emerge (in other words as long as the deception is effective and people are good at keeping secrets). But if other people have a preference for shadows and puppets, so be it.
- My understanding is that Law basically chose to out himself (gradually) by telling more and more people about his past account. Now he is being punished and criticized for doing so. That's the way things go here. If he had stayed quiet he would have been fine. But no good deed goes unpunished. And I don't buy the arguments that he should have been straightforward all along. Not if he wanted to be an Admin. Or didn't want to be hounded for whatever mistakes he may have made in the past.
- Honesty is the best policy on Wikipedia as long as you don't mind being blocked, harassed, harangued, and don't have any ambition to be an admin. Indeed honesty is the best policy for any editor who is willing to be dumped on by the abusive powers that be. Wikipedia is organized to imitate Orwellian insanity at every possible opportunity. So be it. At least there's still the occasional opportunity to help write an article. :)
- On a lighter note, I was very pleased to see kind editors pitch in and help out on that article in response to your request. I felt bad, but it would have been worse if they didn't alleviate my guilt by doing the work that was needed for me. :)ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I think I have a different view on all fiasco regarding User:The undertow/User:Law from yours. I'm strongly criticizing Law's lying and his admin friends' immoral behaviors. They should be desysoped accordingly. However, the above reference about "former admins" that I mentioned are more related to the other who has tried to "get you". You can see what I'm talking about how one of the "former admins" is trying to make a conspiracy. I think you should know about User_talk:Jehochman#CoM--Caspian blue 20:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly respect your integrity. I also note that your chances of passing an RfA are close to zero. :) In the RfAs I've participated in candidates are rarely asked about their prior account history (if any) and aren't expected to disclose it. So if we're going to make that a policy, fine. But since we push editors to start over with clean slates and then punish them if they are honest about past accounts, it seems self-defeating.
- Also, by refusing to engage in leniency or working to encourage reformI think it's ridiculous expect editors who want to contribute constructively to out themselves when they're only going to be punished for it. I would much rather see those abusing their privledges and socking or colluding in cabals get rousted.
- In Law's case he chose to disclose to an ever widening circle of editors about his account history, and now he's being punished for it. Maybe he should be applauded for doing so instead of being castigated, or we should at least use the opportunity to fix a system that's broken. I think it's messed up to encourage deception and then get outraged over it. Speaking of which, if you set up a new account I won't tell anyone who you are. I suggest the name "user:SantaHelper" or "user:Baconbit". ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- He is punished for what he did because he has not been punished by evading his ban. As for RFA, I have no interest in such bureaucratic things to "listen to" complaints/whining/nagging/pleas from various people. :-) I do not agree that there is no way for the banned user to avoid past haunting. If you're more interested in me, you will see how I've suffered from all craps and harassment from sockpuppeters. I think Wikipedia should not allow all sockpuppetry, and need so verification for editors to stick one account. Too many times have been wasted for removing vandalism and malicious sockpuppetry by same vandals. Law could've chosen other ways, like working on other Wikipedia project until his ban is expired or requested for unban. After his first unban request is rejected, he soon created the "law" account. There is a big difference between a friend not talking about his buddy's socking, and a friend trying to promote his banned buddy to be an admin. Since the promise is false, I have to disagree with you.---Caspian blue 20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have any problem with editors starting fresh as long as their work is focused on abiding by our policies and improving the encyclopedia. I too prefer transparency, but the powers that be have chosen to discourage honesty, so there's not much choice for those who want to edit in good faith but have a problematic track record. Work on other Wikias? Sure. Are they interesting? Maybe I'll check them out if the campaigning against me is successful. ;) Don't forget me! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- He is punished for what he did because he has not been punished by evading his ban. As for RFA, I have no interest in such bureaucratic things to "listen to" complaints/whining/nagging/pleas from various people. :-) I do not agree that there is no way for the banned user to avoid past haunting. If you're more interested in me, you will see how I've suffered from all craps and harassment from sockpuppeters. I think Wikipedia should not allow all sockpuppetry, and need so verification for editors to stick one account. Too many times have been wasted for removing vandalism and malicious sockpuppetry by same vandals. Law could've chosen other ways, like working on other Wikipedia project until his ban is expired or requested for unban. After his first unban request is rejected, he soon created the "law" account. There is a big difference between a friend not talking about his buddy's socking, and a friend trying to promote his banned buddy to be an admin. Since the promise is false, I have to disagree with you.---Caspian blue 20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I think I have a different view on all fiasco regarding User:The undertow/User:Law from yours. I'm strongly criticizing Law's lying and his admin friends' immoral behaviors. They should be desysoped accordingly. However, the above reference about "former admins" that I mentioned are more related to the other who has tried to "get you". You can see what I'm talking about how one of the "former admins" is trying to make a conspiracy. I think you should know about User_talk:Jehochman#CoM--Caspian blue 20:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1) I'm good. Don't worry about the city article. Many have helped and copy-edited. 2) The "mutual friend" would not consider me his friend, but his absence is really a loss of Wikipedia. He sometimes edited as an IP user, but per his character, he may feel betrayed by the community. That is really regretful. He may need more time going back to the pace that he used to do. 3) Admins' socking seems to be a current trend, but well..some of "former" admins may need to still lash out against the rightful decisions. It is funny they blame ArbCom for their wrongdoings and think of themselves as ArbCom's martyrs...That's why I suggest you to just ignore the all silliness-Caspian blue 02:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
CoM
I don't have difs, but I was under the impression that you had some off-wiki interactions. I could be wrong. After a while all the users start to meld together in ones head. If I'm wrong I'll be happy to correct that. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
In fact, I'll be really happy to correct that since that means that the situation isn't as bad as I thought. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Corrected and clarified. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
"Smear"
Emails in which he takes a distinctly friendly tone with me because he thinks I'm you, refers to me as "buddy" and (when eventually realising I'm not you) admits he only told me he (Law) was the undertow because he thought I was. These aren't really admissible on-wiki. To play devil's advocate that only shows his appreciation of you, not a mutual friendship, so I'll refactor to take that into account. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- My point about the unblock was not critical of you, it was pointing out that Law's actions would have been judged differently if we were aware that he was biased in such a situation. It did not infer or imply, in any way, that you knew Law was the_undertow. I responded to your initial request politely and immediately amended my AN/I statement, so there's absolutely no reason to resort to threats. Ironholds (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at the refactoring, but I will assume good faith that it clarifies that there was no indiscretion on my part and that (at least as far as I know) there was no interaction between myself and The Undertow (an account I was entirely unfamiliar until very recently). If my comments seemed assertive, it's because the smear that I had some history with The Undertow is going around (and I think it started with your post?) and is being used to besmirch me in various venues.
- My work here is very open, and in fact I didn't even use e-mail for months so as to keep everything transparent and on wiki. I don't use IRC, don't post on Wikipedia review, don't e-mail admins with requests or engage in any of the other improprieties that seem to be so common here.
- I was certainly friendly with Law as I'm friendly with lots of editors and admins, especially those who are decent and competent. I'm an active editor so I'm on good terms with lots of admins and editors. Law and I agreed on some issues and disagreed on others, as is normal. I don't want to be involved in any of the score settling or disputes except in so far as continuing to be outspoken for the refocusing of our efforts on improving article content by pushing for more transparency and reform so that POV pushing, abuse of noticeboards to win content disputes, and cabalism are addressed. I would also like to see the drahmaz kept to a minimum. These stressful and frustrating distractions are a great big suck. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ditto on the dramah front; see my posts on User:Daniel's talkpage. My apologies if my (poorly phrased) assertion is being used elsewhere to smear you. If you ping me the locations and users involved I'd be happy to leave a message along the lines of "if you got this idea from my post, please be aware that I was in no way implying any kind of poor judgement or impropriety on behalf of Child of Midnight and was simply referring to the rather 'friendly' attitude Law showed to Child of Midnight in his dealings with me". Would that help? I appreciate it's in some respects a firebreak, and I'm sorry if I've caused you any problems as a result of my actions. I'm also currently having some lovely theories about my motives put around, so I do sympathise. Ironholds (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
.
ANI
In regards to your question at ANI, I have answered it there to the best of my ability. Cheers. — Ched : ? 16:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's a funny idea to me that editors and admins can't be friendly with each other. I try to be friendly with everyone who abides by policy and works to improve the encyclopedia. Sandstein and I have had repeated problems because he refuses to collaborate collegially and respectfully with his fellow editors. And even now he's continued to go after those he disagrees with in a score settling campaign that shows he hasn't learned a thing.
- So compare those actions with Law's sensible corrective action to correct Sandstein's improper block. And note that Sandstein had no problem taking action against an editor with whom he had numerous prior disagreements. Sandstein imposed a policy violating block, maintained false smears and lies which he still hasn't backed down from, and refuses to resolve the disputes appropriately in a way that minimized drama and encourages productive work on the encyclopedia. And even after his abusive block against me, he went and pulled the same kind of stunt with Giano, wasting an enormous amount of time and occupying oodles of editors who could otherwise be contributing to the encyclopedia. And then Sandstein followed that up with more disruptive and time wasting proceedings, instead of just acknowledging his mistakes and working to do better in the future. Is doubling down on stupidity the best way to proceed?
- This is in stark contrast to Law, who is a great editor and was a top notch admin who wasn't afraid to stick his neck out when there was abuse and showed restraint when it was called for. Law is basically being punished for moving to disclose his history to an ever widening circle of editors. The Orwellian policies here encouraged his behavior and only punished him now for disclosing to others who he was. That's how Wiki works. Tell the truth get punished. Look at Lara and Casliber, same thing. But the liars, cheats, and incompetents continue to wander around causing disruptions and aiding POV pushers in their damaging campaigns. It's all pretty disgusting. But I try to keep the faith and hope for the best going forward. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You're dancing on thin ice..
Look. CoM.. I'm one of the few people who bent over backwards to AGF during the whole thing with Sandstein, but I will be blunt. The well of good faith has run dry. You continue to treat Wikipedia as a battleground, go after WMC, disrupt various areas of Wikipedia, insult other editors willy-nilly ("usual stalking and harassing POV pushers" ring a bell?), and you will be blocked again, and probably well on your way to a community ban. You were lucky that ArbCom did not reinstate the block of one week before all this drama interfered. So, I'm giving you as blunt a warning as possible. You are heading down a very steep, very slippery slope. SirFozzie (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- SirFozzie, I think people tend to "skate on thin ice" rather than "dance" on it. This is because ice (of whatever thickness) is a traditional venue for skating (ice skating in particular—I am unaware of rollerskating being a popular activity on ice), not for dancing. Bongomatic 23:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually ice dancing is quite popular in some circles. If the ice is thin it is likely to be even more risky than just skating, so I think the analogy works. Speaking of sports, are you an American football fan Bongo? NFL Europe is no more. Kyle Vanden Bosch seem like a Dutch namem, althoug his team is 0-3. They should've stuck with superstar Vince Young. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- First: ice dancing is ice skating. Second, not really into American football—I tend to root for the Libyan synchronized swimming team when following sports. Bongomatic 00:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually ice dancing is quite popular in some circles. If the ice is thin it is likely to be even more risky than just skating, so I think the analogy works. Speaking of sports, are you an American football fan Bongo? NFL Europe is no more. Kyle Vanden Bosch seem like a Dutch namem, althoug his team is 0-3. They should've stuck with superstar Vince Young. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- SirFozzie, I think people tend to "skate on thin ice" rather than "dance" on it. This is because ice (of whatever thickness) is a traditional venue for skating (ice skating in particular—I am unaware of rollerskating being a popular activity on ice), not for dancing. Bongomatic 23:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- CoM, as much as I appreciate your work here, and as much as I understand the frustration that comes with work in contentious areas, SirFozzie is right. It is never going to help the "collaboration" end of anything by referring to other editors as "liars, cheats, and incompetents". Please learn to leave the grudges at the end of the threads. Please. The content is what we need to concentrate on, not the who. — Ched : ? 21:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll make you both a deal. You guys put a stop to those abusing noticeboard to try and smear me and I will cease responding and defending myself against these malicious attacks. In the meantime am I supposed to stay quiet while people spread lies about me? And Sandstein's going after editors he's in dispute with is unacceptable. Period. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I can't make your decisions for you, but I will suggest this: Just because someone else is digging themselves a hole, doesn't mean you have to follow suit. When you post - the reflection is on you - much more so than it is on them. When they post - the reflection is on them. Remember - when you point a finger at someone - you've got three other fingers pointing back at you. It's just a thought, and I'm only saying it because I'd like to see you continue your work here. If you can keep your cool when all about you are losing their's, you'll stand much taller at the end of the day. ;) — Ched : ? 21:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- These are noble statements Ched, but the fact is that my experience proves that the smears and abuse of noticeboards works. If a lie is repeated enough times, people start to believe it's true. No good deed goes unpunished on Wikipedia. Just look at the treatment I've received despite making every effort to abide by misguided restrictions based on a bad block. The smearing and attacks continue as before and the abusive admin actions have only intensified. So what good does it do to just turn the other cheek in the face of ongoing abuse? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I can't make your decisions for you, but I will suggest this: Just because someone else is digging themselves a hole, doesn't mean you have to follow suit. When you post - the reflection is on you - much more so than it is on them. When they post - the reflection is on them. Remember - when you point a finger at someone - you've got three other fingers pointing back at you. It's just a thought, and I'm only saying it because I'd like to see you continue your work here. If you can keep your cool when all about you are losing their's, you'll stand much taller at the end of the day. ;) — Ched : ? 21:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It is certain that CoM should've toned down and presented powerful "diffs" instead of making allegations because people never know without evidence. However, SirFozzie got the wrong idea. CoM is not going after WMC, but WMC going after CoM instead.[3][4][5][6][7] If he had gone after WMC, there were many chance for him to contribute to WMC's ARbCom case. It seems to be a trend that people are busy exploiting the Law's sockpuppetry and all the fiasco. The initial block by Sandstein for one month is out of line and should not be repeated. That is no excuse for the admin who has been working in AE for a long time. I'm wondering the former admin's "going after" and incivility are not treated on the same ground.-Caspian blue 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Look, it's not within my abilities to resolve the animosity between 2 editors - I've tried a couple times, it just doesn't work. They have to work things out between themselves. As Caspian mentions - 1 diff is worth 1,000 "you're lying, I did not, but you did this" posts. If you want to find what pages editors have edited in common, then you can use this tool. If someone is stalking you, bad mouthing you without cause - then create a text file, copy the diffs, and when you have a solid case to present - then is the time to speak your mind: BUT, do so calmly, rationally, objectively, and without emotion. The person that SCREAMS he said, she said, he's lying, she's making it up is not going to get the attention that a person who says: "Will you please look at [diff 1], [diff 2], [diff 3] and assist me in resolving this problem" will get. — Ched : ? 22:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Since you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), which was closed as "no consensus", you may be interested in a subsequent DRV. Since I disagreed with the close, I contacted the closing admin, who responded, "To be honest, Cunard, I would tend to agree with you, but I am not sure if the balance of things heads to delete rather than no consensus. Listing it at DRV might be a good option here; I won't endorse or oppose the close and will allow the DRV community to decide it. Therefore, I have listed this article at DRV; if you would like to participate, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice
To have more creative overview on the Sustainability article as you claimed you might do originally. Example of people reverting the article with reasons such as this amongst other things. Good faith and civil editors are in demand currently for positive editing on the article. skip sievert (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Skip, there is a level of nastiness and incivility on the sustainability article's talk page that doesn't make it inviting. I brought the article to a couple of administrators' attention and discussed it a bit as an area of problematic behavior. I dipped my toe in the water on the talk page by suggesting a more collegial approach and tweaked the article. But it's just not a subject I'm interested in enough to be willing to endure frothy smears and personal attacks. I get enough of that as it is. I'm sorry if my decision is disappointing, but I can't undertake every battle on Wikipedia. There are lots and lots of bad articles and nasty editors. Most of the admins seem more interested in punishing editors for calling each other names than helping to resolve editing disputes, so it is what it is. That article is heavily fortified by editors who have made clear their unwillingness to collaborate. So I suggest just moving on to another subject where your effort will be useful and well received. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Your probably right. skip sievert (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The Gelato Fiasco AFDs
I've closed the second AFD on this article which you commented in and left the first one open. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)