User talk:85.5.180.9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moreschi, I made a mistake. I don't know the Arbcom members names well, and confused two of their names. I actually went to where it was posted, and the badsite was offline!. If you wish to block me, fine. I did not troll. I asked legitimate questions. Not under my own name, for obvious reasons, in this environment. Remember (WP:AGF) and try not to (also) fall sway to Hanlon's Razor. Cheerio back to you mate.

Contents

[edit] Arbcom

Re: Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Proposed decision, it was renamed by the committee, please leave as Durova. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, are you aware this case was closed? I see you are still editing it. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops. It must have been closed as I was editing it. I apologize, but can the font changes I made remain? I had too many bolds in there.

FWIW, Guy was answering me, so he clearly didnt know either. It was one of those 'moments. 85.5.180.9 17:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please refrain from making personal attacks on fellow Wikipedians, or you will be blocked. Your post on ANI is in violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPA. If you have a case, prepare your evidence and take it to ArbCom. Thanks, Crum375 23:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] note on my page (Crum375)

Thank you for your input. I regret if my presentation of information is viewed as a personal attack, but it was truthful. Presenting to Arbcom wasn't something I felt safe doing, to be frank. Your response of accusation to my offering of information is the kind of response anticipated by me from the Arbcom. And given the reactions of that past few days, I conclude that was an accurate assessment. I can appreciate that you want to protect your friend, but if your objective is to keep this a safe working environment in which to produce a quality encyclopedia, then you are not helping that end. As it stood, I was contacted by an administrator, and I gave the information to them, asking that it be used in consideration, but not as a separate case. They did just that. Kindly refrain from attacking a person who told the truth. I would encourage you to assume good faith, as I try to do to you. Thank you again. 85.5.180.9 23:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I don't follow how I made a BLP violation, by making a comment on the ANI. A BLP violation would indicate that I'd edited a biography, not that I'd have added a comment to an administrative incident. If you are referencing the RL matter (which is indeed a bio matter) what I wrote was also true. The story on Wikipedia vastly differs from the mainstream press coverage (and the official report, not to mention reality). Stating that should not be subject to punishment. Thank you. 85.5.180.9 23:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
BLP applies to anywhere on this site. Crum375 23:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not attacking you in the least. You could, in principle, be 100% correct. But we are not allowed to make accusations and allegations against live persons, per WP:BLP, unless accompanied by very high quality reliable mainstream sources. If it's a wiki activity that is criticized, it has to have complete set of diffs. I have seen none here, so your posts are in violation of BLP, and repeated posting will result in a block. Crum375 23:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you *are* talking about the ANI. Well, there's no bio on that person, sorry, so BLP doesn't apply. I think that you know that very well. A bio is a bio. A personal attack is a personal attack, and none the twain shall meet. If you wish to claim that I'm making up stories, then that's another acronym, surely. If you want to criticize my having stepped forth with valid information (which I did provide to an admin, who treated it with due discretion) then that's interesting. The entire ANI was centred on keeping secret information secret. I did not feel safe giving information to Arbcom, and past two days events proved me correct to so not do. I did give information to an admin who contacted me, and that was fine. There is no rule on Wikipedia that forces you to go to Arbcom, nor to not be able to pick-and-choose who to trust. Thank you for your comments. 85.5.180.9 00:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong. BLP and NPA apply anywhere on this site. If you have a case, take it to ArbCom with supporting evidence. Crum375 00:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel a need to continually accuse me of various acronym abuses (both NPA and BLP dont' apply here, but for different reasons), this for having made a statement, and for having given information privately to an admin. Arbcom is presently Isadly) not a safe place to blow the whistle on a wayward admin, without strong community support. This was evidenced this week. And again, there is no rule stating that Arbcom cases are required. I said my piece, and I gave info, and I'm sorry if that bothers you, but there is nothing against the rules in so doing. Good evening. 85.5.180.9 00:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:BLP and WP:NPA. I am not accusing you, I assume you are acting in ignorance of our rules, and in good faith. If you have evidence, please submit it to ArbCom, or the Foundation. You can't just make allegations about living persons on this site without high quality supporting sources. It doesn't matter how true you believe they are. Crum375 00:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Im terribly sorry, but I know your rules, and I know that what I did to protect myself (not go to Arbcom, etc) was a correct assessment on my part. Evidence at your unhappy and accusing (or rule breaking) reaction to an anonymous IP coming forth with information. A more normal response would be "please, I want to know about this" or " I am surprised, because this is a standup person who never does this, but please explain" not "WP:BLP, WP:NPA, WP:XXX, WP:ETC". I protected myself. Imagine if I gave, for example, you, my identifying information. You are already unhappy that I came forth with a story on your friend (whos ANI you just erased), and if I'd put forth information in this environment, and someone broke my trust, I'd have no recourse to justice. This is currently not a safe place for people to bring forth information without either collusive support, or community backup. Evidence: what I did here was say, "I have a case, it was bad, the person was unfair, and I will talk to someone who wants to talk to me" and per your mind, I'm a WP:BLP, WP:NPA, WP:XXX offender. Crum, be serious. This is not a one-off case, and trying to pick off the small frys isn't going to make it go away. I can appeciate that you are trying to be loyal and helpful to your friend, but you have to be reasonable. Thanks. 85.5.180.9 00:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
If you have a real case, I assume it comes with evidence. That would be links to news media, diffs, or other sources. If they are reliable, there is nothing at all stopping you from approaching the Foundation and/or ArbCom with it. I am not in your way at all. You just can't post your allegations here without the supporting evidence. Crum375 00:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about the ANI of D, or the BLP of RL? If it is the ANI, news coverage? What difference would news coverage make in the Arbcom context for a complaint about an administrator? Their concern is following (or not following) procedure. You know this. (if you are referring to the BLP of RL, there's tons of news coverage. Buckets in fact - but I think you are still stuck on the D ANI). Please let it go. Stop attacking people for telling the truth. I gave the info to an admin and they took it into due consideration. I'm a busy person, and Ive no desire to have an Arbcom case - and again, if the admin is good friends with Arbcom, then it is not advised for anyone. Must go. 85.5.180.9 00:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Highlighting the point: Let it go. Done is done. Thanks. 85.5.180.9 00:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen, if there is 'tons' of evidence, then your case should be easy to make. But you have to do it the right way. Just presenting your allegations without the evidence is not acceptable. No one is trying to stifle you. Crum375 00:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

oh for God's sake Crum375. What I do with my grievances is not your affair. I did provide the information, and thankfully the person I gave it to didn't put *me* on trial, or accuse me of WP:EVIL, as you are doing - without even having the information. I gave the information to an admin, as per my comfort level. There is no rule that anyone has to go to Arbcom. Repeat: LET IT GO. It is not your business. Reporting a wayward admin to Arbcom is stickly when the Arbcom is favorable to admins in general, and this one in particular. I hope someday things are different. If you have unlimited time to spend on minutae, then great - not everyone else does, or wishes to. I'm satisfied, and frankly, it is not your affair what I do with my grievances. Now please stop bothering me. This is beyond advisement and approaching the "h" word. STOP. Good evening. 85.5.180.9 01:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
If you still feel there is anything not above board, let me have your email address and we can continue off-wiki. I assure you all I want is not to violate our BLP and NPA policies. Crum375 01:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your offer. This is a closed case. Now please stop bothering me, as I asked you to do. 85.5.180.9 01:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You can make your case on ANI with high quality sources. Please read WP:BLP and WP:V carefully; we need to be sure that any potentially defamatory or derogatory statement about a living individual is extremely well sourced, with the most reliable and reputable mainstream sources, and ideally quoted directly wherever possible. Crum375 02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you don't embarass yourself with attempts to teaching me how to annontate and perform viable non-defamatory research. My intent in adding that post to the Durova Arbcom "proposed decisions" (I didnt add it to the ANI, JzG did - he copied it there later, which is why I had no foggy clue what you were nagging me about. I thought you were talking about the Ruud Lubbers article). Again, my intent was to highlight how COI warnings need to be made - and the stakes include peoples jobs and dignity which some certain "person" had not the good common sense to protect as a matter of course. Again, my intention was to highlight the need for COI warnings - not to prosecute Durova - but since you accused me of WP:BLP and WP:NPA and WP:EVIL and WP:BAD, and threatened me with repercussions (including the suggestions I make an Arbcom case) then I'll publicly justify and annonate to the full extent of my impressive professional skills and capacities. When Durova asks why I did this, you tell her it was your doing. I'm sure she'll be pleased (not) 85.5.180.9 02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I won't get 'embarrassed' because I wasn't 'teaching' you anything — just pointing you to our very stringent BLP sourcing rules. You may also refer to WP:NOR while you are at it. Note that if your presentation fails to meet the strict BLP requirements on any point, it may be immediately removed by anyone. Crum375 03:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Please control your language; you may wish to refer to WP:CIVIL. And I am not 'bossing' you around, simply saving you and us time and frustration. If you plan to present derogatory or defamatory information about living persons it must have extremely good sourcing, and preferably direct quotations. Violating these rules can be reverted by anyone, so I suggest you heed them, as well as the civility rules you have already violated. I should also mention to you that repeated violations of rules can result in your account being blocked, so please be careful. Crum375 03:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


Look. I asked you to stop writing on my talk page. You made, on my talk page sui generis accusations of BLP, NPA, etc for an ANI edit moved there by JzG. Thus I had no idea what you were talking about. You started with accusations which were unfounded, now you are threatening me with a block. I've asked you politely five times, now I repeat for you to STOP writing random advice and directions on my talk page. THREE PAGES worth of them (outside readers are suggested to view my talk page please). [1] At this point, I will simply consider you incapable of respecting my polite requests and will be forced to ignore you. 85.5.180.9 03:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Please cool it ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to count the times I wrote "please stop bothering me" which were ignored, above. Thx. 85.5.180.9 04:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] for your information

  1. COI - The Conflict of Interest policy is at WP:COI. COI questions go on its talk page and COI complaints go at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or the talk page of the page with the issue.
  2. BLP - WP:BLP says "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page." BLP is not just about biographies, in spite of its name.
  3. Thank you for identifying an article that needed to be deleted due to BLP issues. WAS 4.250 15:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • As I noted to WAS on his talk page, my issue was not "where do I learn about COI?" my issue was "Why do you allow that rules for COI, which are treated as important rules which all users, even IP addresses and newbies should know (to the extent that certain wikipedians feel comfortable criticizing in the press editors who fall afoul of such rules) are not clearly prominently on each page? So that the user are warned before risking job, reputation, corporate image, etc? My suggestion was "make a link on each editing page, with a little hand asking if you are editing about your job, family, you, etc). It would save lots of people trouble. That was my point. You are welcome about the BLP issues. I read that online and it seemed terribly sad, and it moved me to make a contribution to the case, where I would not have otherwise. 85.5.180.9 00:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kind note

I've seen your contributions and there's a distinct lack of contributions to the encyclopedic portion of this website (the articles, not the project or user talk spaces). If you do not intend to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please do not continue to edit other pages, or you may face a block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong / You have no idea what I've edit in the past, I'm an IP. Im answering questions asked of me, after JzG put this article on that page. I am going to revert it so people can read it. If you want to transduce it, rotate it, skew it, do whatever, then fine. Please wait until Im done with it. There is a debate about this entry, between about 20 people, so if you delete it or block me, someone's going to ask you questions. I have time now to edit this, and I'd appreciate you allowing me to finish, after which you can do what you will and debate it with others, at leisure. Thanks for your cooperation. 85.5.180.9 06:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a Swiss IP from which there is only one article edit, and that article has since been deleted. If you are not here to build an encyclopedia, then you should not be allowed to edit. All it appears that you are doing is trying to exacerbate a topic and keep it live. You are on thin ice with the single-purpose account policy or the alternate accounts policy. Either contribute with your regular account (if you have one) or stop trying to stir up drama.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I am answering a request of others. I'm sorry if you feel I need to give you a resume to continue to contribute, but I am enough of a member here to know that you have had issues blocking new editors and of being very suspicious. Twenty people are talking about this issue. I would like to finish this edit, and then if you want to block me and have a debate with them about whether you were censoring, then please do that. Because I am trying to add information which was asked of me (allegation with no citation). So you aren't allowing me to cite. Even if you delete my IP (Ive seen you do this before, not to me, but in general, you do this - you had an RFC for this kind of thing, am I right?) there is a bunch of people talking about this issue, and they will question you. So please, just let me finish, then block me if you so desire, and debate it later with other people who will definitely ask you about it. 85.5.180.9 06:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
All it seems that you are doing is that you want to extend the discussion of the topic as long as possible. You've made no edits other than those in correlation with Durova and her recent arbitration case. If you are enough of a member here, that means that you should be utilizing your initial account instead of this "anonymous" IP to edit from.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes I did, and that's the point. JzG put the comments I made on the ANI, but forgot to tell me, so people started writing me comments, and I am trying to clarify. May I finish please? Thanks in advance. 85.5.180.9 06:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Your commentary is way too large for function of the page. Please leave it in the collapsible table.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, I would prefer if this conversation were kept on this page and in one location.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello people talking about the ANI page!! Ryulong has seen fit to block me. Im rather busy, and it took me two days to get some time to post my reply to the request for citation, so I might not be able to add information again for a bit. Please try to help Ryulong to be kinder and more facilitative of communication on issues that are indeed encyclopedic-related. I was trying to clean up that edit, as there are some unlinked sentences, but Ryulong would not allow for that, unfortunately. Pity. 85.5.180.9 06:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC) All that we've seen come from you is trolling, lying, and shit stirring. If you have something else to contribute, you could have done so. It does not take a week of editting to compile evidence to exacerbate an issue. If you feel it fit to edit an encyclopedia article, then request an unblock. Other than that, you are blatantly wasting our time.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong, I'm not sure that's entirely fair. I agree that the level of detail was counter-productive, but the anon is making some important points, which we'd all do well to listen to, particularly about the potential for causing people real-life problems just because of a few edits to Wikipedia. His point about the COI guideline needing a warning is also important. Would you consider unblocking, please? And to the anon, if you do get unblocked, I think you've probably made your point in enough detail now; any more and it starts to look like laboring the point, which may be what Ryulong is reacting to. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comments, Slimvirgin. Actually I was cutting down excess sentences and typos. And frankly, it is not a simple situation, and not everyone understands political linkages, which is why I was trying to be a bit didactic. As I said, anyone is free to do what they want with it, but I would have appreciated the ability to finish, as well as the good faith. I do have to get going soon, and don't know if I can fix things - and i've lost about 10 edits in this block, which means it is going to be a mess unless someone fixes my typos (I know how to spell!) and formatting concerns - which they are free to do. Thanks again. "85"

85.5.180.9 07:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The points raised are important, but the level of detail and particularly the totality of this individual's edits are in question here are disparaging towards one individual on this website. If I had seen other edits, there would be no problem, but there is nothing to compare and contrast with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong blocked me while I was trying to finish formatting the information I was asked to cite about the Durova Congress case on ANI. So I'm sorry it isn't very clear at the end, but there is nothing can do about it.

Apparently, I am a "liar" and a "shit-stirrer" and "have no history of encyclopedic edits".

Hooookay.

Thanks,—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.180.9 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 December 2007