User:Bishonen/Sandbox 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm certainly not part of any group of users habitually defending Ghirlandajo; in fact in the only dialogue I've had with him, in April of this year, he was wounding and inconsiderate, and I've given him a wide berth ever since. Nevertheless, I urge arbcom to reject this case. In fact I urge Cowman109 to withdraw it. I believe, after a sampling of Ghirlandajo's more recent contributions, that he is already well on the way to communicating on-wiki with more consideration for others. (Or that he was, as the circumstances around his recent 3-hour block and around this RFAr will surely tend to the opposite effect.) The recent diffs posted by Cowman on ANI are IMO by no means personal attacks or incivilities, they're mere expressions of opinion in appropriate venues. I clicked on them lazily, expecting to have my preconceptions confirmed—"oh, yeah, Ghirlandajo, rude bugger"—and was astonished to see what kinds of edits are now being called "incivility and trolling". Please just look at them, Giano lays them out above. In the ANI discussion following on Cowman's list of diffs, some strong protests were lodged against the treatment of Ghirlandajo, and incomprehension of why these diffs were even being posted (a puzzlement I share). See especially the fully argued comment by Irpen on Tony Sidaway's actions ("dangereous, unwarranted and harmful", as italicized by Irpen). What Tony did was post a warning on User talk:Ghirlandajo that referred to the edits in question as "gross incivility and what appear to be trolling or deliberately inflammatory comments"[1] (IMO a provocative description) and then he blocked Ghirlandajo for this response. The block reason given is "Unreasonable and defiant response to request to tone down after multiple instances of gross incivility"[2] I'm flabbergasted by this. "Unreasonable" might equally well be applied to Tony's insistence that these edits are grossly incivil, and as for defiant, WTF? (That stands for "What The Flap-doodle".) Users don't get to defy admins now—that's a block reason? What are we, 19th-century headmasters at a really strict public school? If this kind of treatment "encourages" Ghirlandajo to be more civil, I'll eat my cascading style sheets—where's the realistic psychology? There is too much blocking for putative, subjectively defined (as there is no other way of defining them), "NPA violations", and it only seems to be getting worse. The idea of blocking an editor one finds abrasive in order to give him/her "time to cool down" or an "opportunity" for introspection or whatever (a notion also mooted in the recent User:Giano debacle) seems to me to be mere Newspeak, and just about equally patronizing as planting officious warning templates on established users. Did anybody ever improve in civility, let alone introspection, by being talked down to in this way?
The most important point I want to make is that I think Ghirlandajo had already seen the light and was being much more collegiate. This impression I've formed from a sampling of his recent contribs. Of course I may have missed stuff, but Of course I may have missed stuff, but better-informed editors are saying the same thing above, I see. (See statement by Grafikm_fr). I believe that the complaints made at the old RFC which is listed as evidence above and which was brought in December 2005, are essentially obsolete. I would fully endorse Ghirlandajo's request for more recent evidence. Finally, it's not an admin job, or even an arbcom task, to fix people. Yes, Ghirlandajo probably does think the project needs him more than he needs it; yes, he goes on a lot about his contributions; yes, it's annoying; so? I'm annoying, you're annoying. Wikipedia is not the bed of Procrustes for reworking people's personalities all into the same approved mold. For instance, and this is just one minor example, we're not all Americans. There needs to be room in the project for a fiery Sicilian like Giano, a rancorous Swede like me, an ... annoying Russian like Ghirla. To some of us, the dominant American/British wiki discourse (which I'll refrain from offering any stereotype of) can even be annoying in and of itself. More headroom, please. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Matt Crypto puts it very well, but Elonka has heard these points eloquently expressed before. As explained in my top post, the reason I took the problem to ANI in the first place was that many people had been trying to explain about dispute resolution to her, in a nice friendly way, but had gotten nowhere. (Here are the diffs again, a small selection out a a large material: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Obsessive typo corrections aside, Elonka's responses are just the next post along.) Her responses ask, puzzledly, how else she's going to "make DreamGuy be polite", get satisfaction, get her apology, and get the criticisms of her removed. Or else she explains that she's too famous to "walk away". Either she just doesn't get it or she doesn't want to get it. I don't oppose the reduction of the block; a week is a hefty block. In fact I'd be glad to see Elonka unblocked immediately, if she now showed any signs of getting it, but I don't see any such signs on her talkpage or her new site. Quite the contrary. Bishonen | talk 18:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

Note:cats removed from the messageboxen!

Astounding PAs on Android's page. "Sociopathic tendencies". [7]. Followed up by astounding hypocrisy about skirting actually calling DG a sociopath (classic wikilawyering). "I know that it would be improper for me to accuse DreamGuy of being a sociopath: However, I do stand by my statement that "an admin with sociopathic tendencies" would be a bad thing for Wikipedia." [8]

Oh, LOL again. "The users who support DreamGuy say "file the RfC, get it over with," and the users who support me, say either to wait, or don't do it at all. These two sides make me very confused. Wouldn't those who support me want the RfC, and those against me to counsel against it? Why is it the other way around? I'm still not understanding something. :/" [9]. You're SO close!

Uncivil and untrue comments on Bishonen. [10]

The rest of those are on Elonka's talk and my talk. Her grimly joking message on Jan 23 asking EnglishRose to help her harass DG so he'll delete more posts on his page and help her build her "case" is also on Elonka's page.

"Alas, the "close the computer and walk away" tactic does not work as well when someone is a public figure, as I am." [11]

WTF? Here shes suddenly offering advice on "any other questions about Wikipedia structure or etiquette", in a post clearly designed to give the impression she's one of the "experienced users" she mentions. HIlarious! [12]

[edit] Gentle advice to desist

[edit] The evil sociopath: time to put a stop to smear campaign

In my opinion it's time to block User:Elonka for her ongoing smear campaign against DreamGuy, as she has been impervious to all suggestions that she stop voluntarily, [13], [14] [15]; see especially this kindly and exemplary message from Friday. This started with a not-very-remarkable AFD conflict, but seems to have taken on a life of its own, with Elonka (contribs) spending most of her wikitime on it (while DreamGuy for his part continues to edit the encyclopedia). As Hipocrite puts it, "she's gone to every admin and problem user that DreamGuy has interacted with forever"[16], and instead of keeping her dirt page User:Elonka/DreamGuy dispute discreetly in her space, as I have advised, she's spamming more and more far-fetched usertalk pages with invitations to contribute. She claims that DG "has engaged in a longterm pattern of deceptive behavior", has "sociopathic tendencies" (!) [17], "has a demonstrated pattern of abusive behavior, and he needs to be instructed to stop it... That's why I am building this case... as long as he refuses to apologize, I will continue to build the case."[18] See also this unusually frank remark for light on her recent storm of posts on DG's page, which she otherwise insists was intended as "good-faith dispute resolution". Dip into Elonka's contribs at random, then into DG's: the visual created is of one person pounding on another's door day and night and yelling "Come down and LEAVE ME ALONE!" while the target occasionally shouts "Go away!" from an upper window.

[edit] Elonka's attack page

Please note especially the remarkable punishments for DreamGuy that Elonka's attack page suggests here, and her suggested apology from DreamGuy. The talkpage is of interest for Elonka's polite thanks for, and apparent failure to take in, the comments she gets. Please nobody delete this attack page just yet. Even though it's in userspace, Elonka has done everything possible to publicize it, and it may be needed as evidence if this goes to an RFAR (but I'm hoping a forceful community reaction now will show her the light and save us drawing up one of those).

[edit] Bandwagon: Castanea dentata

Very recently, Castanea dentata, who has been having a disagreement with DG over templates, has joined in dialogue with Elonka, as well as contributed to her "DreamGuy dispute" subpage: "You should know that this user is probably several users and I suspect a couple of admins all rolled into one... formatted exactly as another user who also displays similar sociopathic behavior. One award is from Haukur Þorgeirsson who also is associated with one Dieter Bachman and one Padraig somethingorother each of whom frequent many of the same pages as DreamGuy (myths). I am sure there are many others." [19] "You are being too nice... You and I cannot begin to understand people like this. I have experienced people like this in real life, and it has left me thoroughly convinced that evil is a very real force... I'd bet that Bishonen is also him." [20] See also CD's frank proposal to Elonka of tag-reverting for the purpose of helping the "case" against DG: "DreamGuy has just vandalized the following page ... If you revert it, then it will either fix the page or force him to revert it a fourth time. It will also induce him to blank more templates, as he threatens in the history, which will help you immensely". [21] (my italics). Elonka took this advice and reverted the template 8 minutes later. [22] "DreamGuy is out of control. Eventually, DreamGuy and his other identities will cause Wikipedia to be sued and shut down." [23]

[edit] Request for review

I don't think any wikipedian needs to put up with this persecution, let alone a constructive and useful contributor like DreamGuy (even if he is of less than perfect tact). Since I've spoken to Elonka [24] and unpleasantness has ensued, [25] [26] [27], while CD for her/his part "bets" I'm DG's sockpuppet, I will not do any blocking myself, but I would appreciate a review by an (or at least one) uninvolved admin. Note that CD's sockpuppet accusations have, I suppose, "involved", besides myself, Haukurth and, at quite a distance, "one Dieter Bachman" (!), but hopefully CD won't have time to mention all of us before somebody reviews her/him. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC).

This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while.
As a courtesy, please do not edit this article while this message is displayed. The person who added this notice will be listed in its edit history should you wish to contact him or her.

[edit] Hollow Wilerding's block extended for block evasion

64.231.128.57 immediately above is according to Kelly Martin's CheckUser check probably being used by Hollow Wilerding. It's in the same dynamic address range as the IP Hollow Wilerding posted from before she was blocked; it could theoretically have been used by another customer of the same ISP. But I don't believe that for a moment. (And no, assume good faith actually doesn't mean "pretend you're stupid"; it means assume good faith, and if the assumption is disproved, so be it.) Here are some curious coincidences besdies CheckUser:

1. The newbie anon is a wholehearted supporter of HW, which, not to put too fine a point on it, is a very unusual attitude outside of the small flock of users who live in HW's computer. No single user voted Support on HW's RFA.
2. HW has specifically expressed frustration at not being able to post to WP:ANI, and the anon has remedied that by moving a selected post from her talkpage here. The anon also actually raises the same point. Another similarity is that they share the same obsession with WP:AGF, perhaps the only policy "they" know the name of, yet probably not the first that most people would refer to in a case like this.
3. After posting here, 64.231.128.57 went on to edit several pop music articles, which is HW's great interest on Wikipedia. Please note especially that the anon edited two articles, Garlic and Mariah Carey, that have nothing in common except the special interest HW takes in bringing them to FAC quality, as shown on her talkpage (now deleted, but see the history).
4. 64.231.128.57 talks like HW. Some people may consider this a subtle point, but I'm confident they'll know what I mean if they've read HW's articles before copyediting, or her input on talkpages. HW's writing style is very characteristic. Consider for instance the anon's phrase "over-powered admins whom have the ability to taunt oneself a bad name".

IMO these points together easily amount to 100% certainty. I've blocked 64.231.128.57 for 8 hours only, on Kelly Martin's advice, to minimize any risk of collateral damage. I have also extended Hollow Wilerding's block to two weeks, starting now, for egregious block evasion and the attempt above to falsely insinuate support for her position as expressed on her talkpage (go read it, folks!). If any more IPs from the same range should appear to edit HW's special-interest articles and/or support her position, I encourage admins to block them on sight. --Bishonen | talk 20:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This page has been temporarily protected from editing to deal with vandalism. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection.

Update: recent new HW socks that I've noticed and blocked include Siblings WC, Siblings CW, Cruz AFade, Cruz Along, Empty Wallow, TwoDown. I don't doubt that there are others out there. In view of HW's escalating block evasion, legal threats, and stated determination to go on abusing Wikipedia as much as she can, I now agree with Snowspinner's indefinite block. To make Snowspinner's the business block, I have therefore undone my own earlier two-week block. To illustrate, here are some lies ("I have come to announce that she literally gave me her computer") and here some abuse (not workplace safe) on my talkpage.

[edit] Statement by Bishonen

It's been sad to watch User:Beckjord go from optimistic newbie to malcontent and sockpuppeteer, and recently mere vandal [28]. I wish this negative progression could have been avoided, but I can't see how, or that anybody here has been mean to him. He seemed at first full of hope of persuading Wikipedia to waive WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, policies that he despises, and is now bitter and incredulous that people just keep going on and on about them. His article edits are wildly and proudly POV, and he edit wars with great persistence over Bigfoot, and somewhat also Cryptozoology and his own bio. He has often declared that Wiki policy pages are too numerous and complicated [29] [30], and that it's pointless to read them anyway, as they're misguided and perverse [31]. You can see the frustration of those who have tried to direct him to policies, [32] [33] [34] [35], [36], [37]or even simply show him how to format a talkpage heading, [38] , all over the talkpages involved, especially User talk:Beckjord. These pages are made nightmarishly messy, originally merely by his lack of skill, but lately, I think, maliciously. (Now that B has turned puppeteer, some of his unique formatting habits confirm the identification of his sockpuppets — see his trademark top-level headings here.) He revels in repetitious personal attacks, occasionally jocular, lately less so. He targets especially User:DreamGuy, [39], [40], [41], who has put up with Beckjord's barrage a lot more patiently than I could, and has recently turned on Android79 ("This jerk moron is as bad as DreamGuy") [42]. Even though Beckjord's cryptozoological opinions are, er, non-mainstream, he might well have some worthwhile material to contribute, but it value is negated by his disruptive insistence on "owning" the articles and having them express his own views. Thereby he keeps lots of good contributors dishearteningly busy arguing with and reverting him and his socks, and he keeps the articles themselves in a miserable, battle-locked, low-quality state. I'm sorry to say this, but instead of a "contributor" to the encyclopedia, he's a mere drain on it.