User talk:DarrenRay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Blocking Without Foundation

  • I have edited as me, under my own name for a few weeks. Prior to that I occasionally edited as an anonymous editor but rarely. Since I "came out" as me, I have edited ONLY as me, not as anyone other user. Not once. Sockpuppetry is basically a fraud played on other Wikipedia users where you pretend to be someone you're not. I have not done this and I am outraged to be accused in such an offhanded, arbitrary way.
  • I know user 2006BC who I know to be Benjamin Cass and I also know AChan who I know to be Alex Chan. The fact that I know them doesn't mean I am them or that I control or influence their contributions to Wikipedia.
  • Prior to my blocking, Ambi made allegations of sockpuppetry, suggesting she knew I was about to be blocked. Why would that be?
  • A Request for Arbitration has been filed by Ambi. Because I have been blocked I am unable to properly contest it. This is clearly a deliberate strategy on her part. According to Essjay who blocked my account it was blocked after a request from Ambi. Essjay says there is evidence of sockpuppetry while refusing to explain what that even means.
  • I will assume that everyone means well and that these arbitrary blockings will be removed and that we will get a fair hearing, with all the elements of procedural fairness. I won't be accepting anything less.

DarrenRay 14:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively.

The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.
(Account information: block log • suspected sockpuppets • confirmed socks)
Confirmed Sockpuppets:
  • Unitypigdog
  • 2006BC
  • BibiCass
  • D-Ray20
  • ArmageddonX
  • Hamishjay
  • BenjaminCass
  • AChan

Unitypigdog - is not me. And edited for two days, quite uncontroversially by the look of the edits. I know who this person is, I believe he was encouraged to edit by Adam Carr and was then blocked by Ambi. (For no good reason)

2006BC- is Benjamin Cass, who disclosed his identity on his user page and has made some good edits.

BibiCass - appears to have made no edits!

D-Ray20 - made 5 edits, I presume this was me. And was prior to me editing as me and wrote non controversial edits.

X Armageddon X- made 2 edits, of a clean up nature. I presume this was me but don't know. Please check each edit and judge for yourself about this whole matter.

Hamishjay- Again some edits of no great significance. And again prior to me editing under my real name.

BenjaminCass- Made a few edits before editing as 2006BC.

AChan - Alex is not me and I'm sure is happy to tell anyone who listens that not only is he not me but he very much edits and thinks for himself.

If this is massive sockpuppetry then my name is John Winston Howard. DarrenRay 14:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note my first edit under my own name was on the 28th February. I have not edited under any user name since then. So I have been accused of Sockpuppetry based on what? Based on the accusation of an anonymous user who will not disclose her own interest in the articles she edits in contrast to me. I have disclosed who I am. I know my edits get a lot more scrutiny as a result. But that's OK. But why I should be blocked for telling the truth is not something easily understood. DarrenRay 15:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


"The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons" --Ralph Waldo Emerson.



Leave a message.

Welcome!

Hello, DarrenRay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Deiaemeth 08:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Darren, if you want to contribute to wikipedia, you must write from a neutral point of view. Otherwise, your edits will be reverted. Xtra 02:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Darren, you are not going to get acceptance for these edits, some of which are obviously silly, and you are not helping Andrew by trying to do so. My suggestion is that you go to the article's Talk page and provide a list of factual statements which you think the article ought to include, and of statements which you think ought to be removed, which can then be discussed, and the article edited in a manner that interested editors can agree on. Adam 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you make frivolous edits, you can't be surprised when unsympathetic editors revert your edits in toto. You are already labouring under the handicap of being a known participant in the matters under discussion. That doesn't prevent you editing, but it does mean your edits will be subject to greater scrunity, and rightly so. You therefore need to be very careful that all your edits are as NPOV as possible. I can't judge whether the current version of the article is defamatory. If you think it is, you should raise this on the Talk page and state your case. Adam 04:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you believe content about you is libelous add a {{Libel}} tag. Xtra 06:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Darren. I think you have me misunderstood. I voted for you in the MUSU elections and supported your general agenda (mostly the food voucher idea). My problem is that you are just changing the entire context of the article without even discussion anything first. Why don't you suggest what changes you would like to be made on its talk page and we can work through what is appropriate and what is not. Xtra 06:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I could tell you, but then i'd have to kill you. Xtra 12:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea is that all my edits can be traced back to me (being a cyber account) and i (as that account) am responsible to the wikipedia society and am suposed to obide by the rules and am subject to disciplinary sanctions. At least i do all my edits under a pseudonim, rather than from random IP's which cannot be traced. Xtra 12:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

HAhaha! fat chance! look at my edit history. One of my main objectives here is to keep things not too left wing, but I also try to keep everything accurate. I think you will find that Adam Carr is one of the relatively few wikipedia users who gives their real identity. Xtra 12:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Not keep things too left wing? So overly right wing is the solution? I guess you think extreme left edited by extreme right = NPOV. That doens't add up. Lefty on campus 12:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC) --.
I think that proves that I am not a lefty. I am not a fan of McVeigh's, I am just interested in neutrality. Xtra 12:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I have been having a "discussion" with him/her about the recognition of homosexuality by australian law. Xtra 12:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Try to use preview

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. Where (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Melbourne University Student Union

Darren, regarding your question about external links, there's nothing wrong with having external links in articles which express a point of view, indeed it's almost always beneficial to include links to criticism of the subject. However, in accordance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (NPOV), external links should reflect a balanced selection of a range of viewpoints. Given that you authored the site in question, and given your vested interest in this subject, it is hardly NPOV to present your link as the only one. I suggest that you consider collecting several links representing multiple points of view about the union before reinserting your link. --bainer (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, added in a different perspective as you suggested and disclosed my interest in the edit summary. DarrenRay 09:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Darren, I've left some comments on Talk:Melbourne University Student Union. It may also be useful to add a description of each link, since plain links are inherently ambiguous. --bainer (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Me

I won't tell you who I am but I will tell you that I am related to one former Labor federal minister, one current state Liberal member and one possibly future federal Labor member who is challanging a former leader of your party. Xtra 10:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

On a technical point Darren. It is the liquidator is is responsible for the liquidation of the Union. Xtra 11:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind you thinking lowly of me. Xtra 11:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dean McVeigh

Hi Darren, I thought I'd reply instead of the AFD page. I appreciate that you are looking for people to debate the notability issue, but I just don't think you should be taking people's comments as personal attacks. I've since read your website and I think I now understand why you were offended, but I honestly don't think Ambi or Cursive were directing that comment at anyone specifically. Also, I wouldn't be too worried about the AFD as it looks like it is going in the direction of being no consensus/keep. And yes, this is my real name. I'm not keen on anon editing. People seem to think they can avoid responsibility for what they write when they have a pseudonym to hide behind. If you're writing under your real name, you tend to give more thought to what you write. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon edits

Hi - you have just joined a very large community which is reasonably well established and has recognised terminology - using the same words slightly differently is confusing. Anon edits are those that are from users who have not signed in - ie are using an IP address only. Some people prefer to contribute that way, that is fine. There are some things they cannot do, for example move pages, edit semi-protected pages, have their voice heard in community debate (It will generally be disregarded). There are others who edit under a user name. That is they are signed in. They may or may not use their real name. I don't. It does not make me anonymous - it makes me pseudonymous - quite different. I could claim to be Darren Ray - a real person - and still not be him. I am the sum of my edits on the wikipedia - no more no less. For privacy reasons, I do not wish to reveal my identity. Even if I did, who could say I was telling the truth? To judge me, or any other editor, you look at my edits.

Please refer to editors who are signed in, not as anon edits (it confuses the mug punter), but pseudonymous edits or the equivalent if you must. Thanks--A Y Arktos 19:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I draw your attention to the guidleine at Wikipedia:Etiquette, which among other useful bits of advice, states: Argue facts, not personalities. Your current stance is in breach of that guideline.--A Y Arktos 20:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As you will see from this diff - I did not delete your talk page!!!A Y Arktos 20:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The history certainly indicates that but I wonder why it was coming up blank. Perhaps a glitch? DarrenRay 21:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a glitch as the same thing happened to me last night. Anyway Darren, I was reading the Make McVeigh Pay website last night. My dad used to work in the Property & Buildings Dept! But he left and went to Melb Uni Private just before all that crap happened. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Response to comments about your blank user page

Did you reload or refresh before throwing accusations about? Your computer problems or glitches have nothing to do with me. Your problems derivefrom a server problem, either your ISP's server or perhaps a problem from the servers of the Wikimedia Foundation. As above, I refer you again to Wikipedia:Etiquette - in this case "assume good faith". --A Y Arktos 03:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Landeryou

You and Andrew if he is still around might like to have a look at this, which I have not yet installed as an article. There is a gap in the story which after 23 years I can't recall. Adam 04:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


You know as well as I that it was not a racial slur, but rather a slur making fun of Simon Crean and the Labor Party as a whole. Xtra 06:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Meetup in March

I see that you recently listed as a participant in the WikiProject Melbourne. If you are a Melbourne resident I would appreciate your views on the suggested Meetup in March . Please give some indication of your interest, or otherwise, in the idea. Even a simple "No thanks" with your user name would be welcome and assist in assessing the level of support for a meetup. Thank you. Cuddy Wifter 06:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Megan

Tell her I'll meet up with her tonight. Xtra 06:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

FYI, please keep in mind the Three Revert Rule, which disallows no more than three article reverts within one 24 hour period. Administrators have the ability to block accounts ignoring this policy. -- Longhair 07:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The totally disputed tag serves the purpose you require. It's far better than landing yourself a block from reverting content you disagree with. If you disagree with the article contents entirely, I can't think of any notice more suitable. You can also mark individual content with the {{fact}} tag, indicating a source is required for that specific wording of the article. There's other editors who aren't online at the moment who I think would prefer to discuss the article contents also. Discussions like this one don't take a few minutes. Sometimes they can last for weeks. Keeping civil, seeing article progression to an agreeable consensus is what we're all here for in the end. Any questions, feel free to ask. -- Longhair 08:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Barendse

There's discussion on the article's talk page regarding content, however I see you've already located that. Cheers. -- Longhair 08:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Landeryou

You write: "For a start, he is not a businessman. Do a Google search and you will see he is a full-time journalist and publisher." If he is a fulltime journalist, where does his journalism appear? If he is a publisher, what has he published? Running a blog is neither journalism nor publishing, it is blogging. If he makes his living through revenue from the blog, that is a business and makes him a businessman, not a journalist. I am not privy to his personal affairs but as far as I know he has made his living in recent years solely as some kind of businessman. At present he may be an unemployed or self-employed businessman, but businessman still seems to be the best description. Adam 08:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A "fulltime journalist" is a person who makes their living from fulltime journalism - being paid to write for a media organisation of some kind. Landeryou does not get paid to write for his own blog, or anywhere else so far as I know. Even if his blog was pure news (which of course it isn't, it's 80% opinion and satire), that wouldn't make him a journalist, and certainly not a fulltime one. As a self-supporting blogger he is in a different category to someone like Margo Kingston, who is paid by the SMH to write her webdiary. Adam 08:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A self-employed (or freelance) journalist is one who makes their living selling articles to media outlets. That is not what Landeryou does. I presume he makes a bit of money selling advertising space on his blog, but he does not sell his writing to anyone, which is what journalists do. He is no more a journalist because he owns a blog than Kerry Packer was a journalist because he owned the Bulletin. I have no idea what AL's current income source is, so "businessman" is the politest term to use.

We are arguing in the dark here because I don't know what AL's current source of income is, and I don't expect you to disclose it here. I suspect at the moment he is not anything in an occupational sense. Of course it is not necessary to be currently employed as something to be described as being that thing in a general sense. A doctor who is not currently working as a doctor is still a doctor. But AL so far I know has never worked as a journalist (correct me if I'm wrong). He has made a living as a businessman in the past. As I recall he was in Costa Rica looking for investment opportunities, yes? That is what businessmen do. The only public activity he currently undertakes is his blog, which is a business of sorts. Therefore I think he should be described as a businessman until he acquires a new occupation. Any other description will be seen as a euphemism, and to some extent that would be true. Adam 11:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barendse

I fought about that last year and kept getting reverted so I gave up. Xtra 09:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Cain

i see what you are saying - there's probably a better way of saying it in the article though.

i can understand the ignorant masses blaming the government for Not Doing Something to prevent them losing their money - but what could Cain and co. do - stricter government regulation/intervention was not possible in the political climate of the late '80s and business and others would scream blue murder if they had tried. (It's funny how so many people say they want the government off their backs - until it affects them directly - then it becomes "Save us! Save us!", even if the problem was 'caused by telling the government to fsck off in the first place.) PMA 09:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UMSU

Find me two other organisations which Wikipedia lists the executive salaries (other than ones you have added) and I will not remove it. Otherwise, I will. Xtra 02:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. wasn't your salary about double that of the current president? Xtra 02:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to make POV edits to articles concerning things to do with you, I will report you to administrators. Xtra 02:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Melbourne Student Union

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Xtra 08:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dean McVeigh

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Xtra 08:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


Which quote spiderman? Xtra 08:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comrade? I am not a communist. Just some friendly advice. If you want to continue to be able to contribute, you had better stop throwing your weight around, or you might find yourself unable to edit anymore. I am trying to keep this place neutral, but you are not helping. Xtra 08:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the transcript? Xtra 08:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

Attacking people who revert your edits as being "socialists", "anonymous" or "interested parties" is against Wiki etiquette.Theusualsuspect 10:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenny Mikakos

Hey Darren, I did some research and went through and referenced every piece of information in the Mikakos article, so I don't think it can be legitimately reverted as "hearsay" anymore. Also, you need to activate your email so people can email you. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McVeigh article merged

As a new editor on Wikipedia you are probably not familiar with how contentious edits are resolved. These articles will be merged and what you need to do is substantiate is why McVeigh needs to be in the article at all, rather get into a revision battle which you won't win and result in you getting blocked. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been observing the article longer than you have been an editor. I have chosen not to get involved in the discussions because you are patently POV in your perspective, which has no place on Wikipedia. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The merger was not unilateral. It was the overwhelmingly obvious outcome of what would otherwise have been a long and protracted edit war with much bitterness and bile. I have avoided most of that. You should have no doubt in your mind that if you continue to push outside a neutral view that you will end up with less rather than more of what you wish to see in these articles. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles can be renamed or merged if the majority of editors working on it agree to do so. The minority can resist and wage revert wars, but sooner or later they will be overridden. In this case there are two points. The first is that McVeigh is only a notable person in the context of the history of the MUSU liquidation, and merging the two articles actually makes sense. The second is that your interest in the matter is well known, and this reduces your credibility in opposing the merger. Adam 03:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What's up Doc? 2006BC 06:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, more trouble. Adam 06:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that despite getting advice from Adam you chose to ignore it. Whereas you could be making a significant contribution to political articles in general, you choose to use your time to be argumentative and disruptive. So be it. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudonyms

You need to let go of this view that pseudonyms are a bad thing. The vast majority of editors choose not to reveal personal information for all sorts of reasons. I didn't threaten 2006BC with blocking as I am not an admin so am unable to block. I did use standard wikipedia templates to point out that disruptive edits are not appreciated and are dealt with swiftly.

Creating a new userid and launching into a reversion of a merged article whilst pretending that he doesn't understand where the article went is nonsense or naive. The McVeigh article has been nothing but POV from the start and most of the edits have not improved things. I actually voted keep or merge on the afd but it became very apparent that while there is a whole article focussed on the liquidator rather than the liquidated that there would be POV from those challenged in the litigation, swinging the other way as others attempt to dismiss those comments as sour grapes by the litigants.

The article read as disjointed and hostile. The background information seemed to be present only to fuel POV. If the article is restored it will almost certainly fail AFD given the recent edit wars and you will have less rather than more. I kept the section on the liquidation of MUSU in the new University of Melbourne student services article and this is where I believe the focus should be on providing a concise and factual account of what is going on - something I certainly have not been able to ascertain from the McVeigh article prior to the merge. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello statesman

You call yourself statesman. Ha ha.

I will come back tomorrow. AChan 12:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

I think already did that - what happens now ? AChan 12:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Don't worry about it too much, if you didn't know it might not be a problem. DarrenRay 12:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Landeryou unprotection

I'll give unprotection a try. If an edit war erupts, don't be surprised to see it protected once again. -- Longhair 13:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration

Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between DarrenRay, 2006BC and others. You are being named as an involved party. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Les Twentyman

Looks good. enochlau (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please see my comment at Talk:Student organisations at the University of Melbourne

I'm trying to wikipedia:Assume good faith here, but your recent behaviour is making that difficult. I would really appreciate an effort on your part to restore the text you reverted. Wikipedia is a place for constructively and collaboratively building informative articles in a neutral way. Destructively editing articles to make them sympathetic to a certain party runs contrary to that goal, and is not tolerated.

That said, I look forward to some more constructive contributions on your part, and please restore those reverts. Thanks. Stevage 10:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your request

Consider it declined. My edits are fine. If you learn and follow the neutral point of view policy, then you'll find yourself getting into much less conflict on this project. Ambi 23:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed your comment on Adam's page. For the record, feel free to mention that Argondizzo is in the SL if you can somehow work it into the text - I just object to anyone's faction being mentioned in the lead section. And spare me the maligning of my motives - I moved to Canberra from Geelong in February 2005 (as most long-term editors would be aware, as I was editing Wikipedia long before that), which is why I still follow Victorian politics. Ambi 03:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Practice what you preach first. I've been working on this project for years, and have done my fair share of non-controversial work in disputed areas. With that in mind, I'm disinclined to waste what little free time I have on Wikipedia these days trying to tone down bias from people with a very obvious personal stake in the topic at hand, when I could be doing useful work elsewhere on the project. Incidentally, what cause do you accuse me of supporting? Ambi 05:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anonymous/pseudonymous

I have been following in part some of the arguments you have been in since you joined Wikipedia. You keep going on about editors being "anonymous/pseudonymous" and this really does not win friends and influence people. When you joined Wikipedia you joined a community that has developed ways of doing things. It is not usefull or sensible to mount a campaign to change major features of these ways at least until you have been part of the community for some time. There are good reasons why many editors want to remain anonymous/pseudonymous. I am happy to use my name and be fully transparent, but I can well see that many people do not want to do that for good reason. To insist on full transparency would lose us some expert editors. Editing Wikipedia is not a good career move in many universities and research institutes. So, please drop this campaign and comments about people being "anonymous/pseudonymous". Just accept people how they are. It is a long wikipedia tradition which I learnt when I joined not long before you did. Just some friendly words of advice. --Bduke 04:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think that all Wikipedia editors ought to be identifiable by name and contactable by email. It is true that we would lose some editors, but we would gain a great deal in terms of responsible behaviour. There would be much less abuse and POV-pushing if people were held accountable for what they said and did here, just as they are in their professional and personal lives. But Bduke is right in saying that the convention of anonymity is entrenched here and isn't going to change. Adam 04:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

let us keep it on your page so it is all together. You replied to me on my talk page as follows:-

I have a view that Wikipedia should evolve into not allowing anonymity or to at least allowing the moderation of anonymous/pseudonymous edits by non anonymous folk, just my view but I hope I'm allowed to express it. I have no doubt people will disagree and I'll respect their right to do so but that doesn't make the anonymous slagging that I've personally witnessed on some articles right, good for Wikipeida or behaviour I could ever accept. DarrenRay 04:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You have a right to express it, but it is not wise when you have only just joined Wikipedia. Before you alter a community you have just joined you should learn how the community works. If you do that you will learn that Wikipedia will not evolve in the way you wish. As I stated, and you ignored, there are very good reasons why some editors want to be at least in part anonymous/pseudonymous. They might still go to meetups and use their name there - similarly on the e-mail list. But on the edit record they will not. I myself would prefer that we insisted that only registered users can edit. That means users can be blocked without blocking IP addresses that cover a whole university or school. --Bduke 04:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brendanfox

Check this out[1]. I think Brendan/David might be a little bit upset with Andrew's blog. Although of course it's not well known. Just so well known as to be driving him nuts. --2006BC 22:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, not only did that happen several months ago (how long do you think I can hold a grudge?), and not only is my link to that whole affair minor, but if I really was that worked up about it, would I really have written the edit in such a NPOV manner, following exactly the same format as the comments on State and Federal MP's? As I've explained elsewhere, the edit was actually intended to keep the pro-Landeryou's happy, I really am suprised that you could find mention of this objectionable. If we're happy to mention Landeryou's criticism of State MP's, Federal MP's, well why not local council? Brendanfox 10:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking names

Darren, can I ask why you keep relinking the names in the Andrew Landeryou article? Do you feel articles should be written about those people? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I don't know if those people qualify as notable yet or not, so I just wanted to check with you as it seemed odd watching the links go on and off. I agree, the fighting over links is very silly. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melbourne University student unions

Would you agree to a version of Garglebutt's edit of the McVeigh section of the Melbourne University student unions article if it was followed by a clear statement that the allegation was strenuously denied by the defendants or something like that? I think removing that quote makes it look like you're attempting to sanitise the article for personal reasons. It would be much better to negotiate a compromise. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politicians

It's a bit awkward when you work for one. State Liberals are probably OK. I think Olexander's allegations should be reported. On balance I believe him, not that that's the point. Adam 05:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Personal attacks

I agree personal attacks are unacceptable. I am not defending Garglebutt's comments, I just want to see everyone making an effort to collaborate instead of arguing. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Garglebutt to stop making person comments and I refactored the "idiots misguided" comment per WP:RPA. I hope everyone can move beyond this and the edit warring and start compromising and collaborating. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] decency

Hi.

With regard to my edit to Greg Wilton, you might just like to note what the previous edit was like. If anything, I thought I watered it down.

With regards to the edit to Stephen Conroy, I thought that it was a perfectly legitimate (if hastily written) addition. Kim Beazley already had an entire paragraph in his article devoted to Greg Wilton. And As far as I can see, his only crime (if any) was not paying attention. Conroy, on the other hand, seems to have taken a more active role. By several accounts, he planted the story which sent Wilton over the edge. I thought one sentence about it was justified.

I'd also thought that it would provide some context here. Crean and others could have attacked a range of people. They attacked Conroy. Whatever one may think of Latham, reports about his book do appear to give us a window to some grudges within the party.

This is very dangerous territory and will seriously get someone sued. Don't say you weren't all warned. Adam 10:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My warning was not aimed at you in particular. As Wikipedia gets more wideky read and taken more seriously, so the danger of litigation grows. We came close with the allegation that someone (I forget his name now, a former US official) was involved in the "plot" to kill JFK - he very nearly sued. Adam 12:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It was John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, if you're interested. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. Had he sued, Wikipedia would probably have been bankrupted and taken offline. Adam 12:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite an amazing saga. What's to prevent it from happening again? DarrenRay 14:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm having trouble seeing how this relates to the edits I made. Those Seigenthaler edits were completely fabricated, and not attributed to any reliable source. My edits were a matter of public record, and easily verified. In the unlikely event Stephen Conroy sued Wikipedia, he would be able to sue Fairfax, News Limited and anyone else who published such allegations.
I would understand the fuss if I had written "Stephen Conroy drove Greg Wilton to suicide." What I wrote was more "Mark Latham believes Stephen Conroy helped trigger Wilton's suicide.", which is not the same thing.--220.238.236.45 05:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes it is. Please keep Mark Latham's mad thoughts where they belong. In his book and his toolshed. --2006BC 07:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I find Mark Latham's personality irrelevant. Latham is notable, no matter how much many of us would wish otherwise. Wilton is notable. The incidents (both Wilton's death and the media frenzy over the Latham diaries) were notable, and possibly one of the most high-profile incidents of Conroy's career thus far. If there is no real reason to keep it out of the article, I'm quite inclined to add it back (as always, it can always be edited to make it more NPOV)--220.238.236.45 08:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've waited a couple of days to see if anyone raised any further objections. Not having seen any replies, I'll just put it back. I'll reiterate, it is notable enough to merit being on the page, and I do not see any basis in Adam Carr's legal concerns. Once again, I don't think one can justify censoring it away, but by all means make it more NPOV.--220.238.236.45 15:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Crawford

Hi, it's usually not considered necessary to protect a page from re-creation unless it already has been deleted and re-created three times or so. Scott Crawford has only been deleted once, so let's just leave it a red link for now. Angr/talk 12:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Darren Ray user page

Darren someone vandalised your user page again. I thought you should remove the mention of the person I'd never heard of but I gave you two replacements. Feel free to change back. Hang loose. --2006BC 00:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Swinburne Student Union is worth a look. --2006BC 00:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Garglebutt

Despite repeated attempts, Garglebutt refuses to remove his defamatory attack. I have decided not to persist with him although obviously that is not the end of the matter. --2006BC 10:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

I did articles on ABC Learning and Centro Properties, is this the right sort of format ? AChan 03:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dreyfus

A model of NPOV writing - I knew you could do it if you tried :). I would wikify Queen's Counsel and spell out AIJAC. 1990's does not take an apostrophe. Adam 07:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I will add a photo tomorrow. Adam 08:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks dude. AChan 08:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AWB

I noticed you applied for the AWB browser, you might also be interested in trying Popups. It's quite handy. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names

All biographical articles should start with the subject's full name (I doubt Mark has a "Christian" name), eg Robert James Lee Hawke. There are guidelines on Wikipedia styles and formats somewhere. Adam 10:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Then your entry would begin:

Sir Darren Winston Churchill Ray, KCMG, etc etc. Adam 10:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You better hurry, I believe he is about to kark it and when he does the commoners will rise up and overthrow the monarchy. Adam 10:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social Left

Oh dear now you are really trying to get me in trouble, aren't you? I will have a look. Adam 11:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What complete rubbish. Who wrote it? Adam 12:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Marles

Should be on your watchlist. I see poor Sang Nguyen has been guillotined to make room for Citoyen Pakula. Ze revolution it is a bloody business, non? Adam 00:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Why thanks you. I see you are a statesman. That is a fine thing to be. Do you think Australia is ready for a statestoad? Intelligent Mr Toad 09:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I have requested arbitration against you over your continuing editing of articles you are heavily personally involved with, something which is severely discouraged on Wikipedia. Ambi 02:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That said, I specifically left out the rest of the dispute, because I think we're slowly getting towards a consensus version on most of the articles - the disputed sections seem to be growing smaller by the day. I've explained my ongoing issues with the Carlo Carli, Lidia Argondizzo and Richard Marles articles, and I hope you'll respond there so we can resolve these as well.
However, would you mind reining in your friend Mr. Chan? I'm getting fed up of being reverted without any attempt at explaining why, let alone attempting to come to a resolution, and he's pushing the entire dispute towards arbitration. You've been reasonable enough on these disputes so far, and I see no need for the rest of it to get there, but if Alex's constant reverting without justification continues I see no alternative but to ask the arbitration committee for some relief. Ambi 03:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I could care less whether you're impressed. I do care, however, about getting some resolution on these articles. Ambi 03:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AWNL

The Age wrote: "The first women elected in WA, NSW, Queensland and Victoria were all members of the leagues," which I assume is true although I haven't checked. But you wrote that the first women candidates were AWNL members, which is not true. There were two women candidates at the 1903 federal election (Vida Goldstein and Selina Anderson), the year before the AWNL was founded. Care must be taken when cribbing. Intelligent Mr Toad 12:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Il-Carr

Perhaps you could have a look at the Kimster's entry. It says nothing about whatever he did for a living before being elected to the Senate, other than that he was "a political staffer and associate of Wally Curran." I thought he was in fact a teacher and teacher union official. I don't recall him being a political staffer, but then I haven't been following his brilliant career all that closely. There also needs to be something about his activities as boss of the Gauche Socialiste, and particularly his role in the recent round of ritual executions - phrased in the most NPOV manner possible, of course, which is something I gather you specialise in. Intelligent Mr Toad 07:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will be interested to see how long that little lot survives. I hadn't seen the "virgin in the ALP brothel" line before - very nice. Intelligent Mr Toad 09:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not follow Toad's suggestions about the Carr article? I chopped out the long, pejorative quotes about his attitudes towards China and Syria, as they were non-encyclopedic. The facts about Carr are damning enough without grasping at straws. Ambi 02:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Carr

I uploaded that picture of Kim Carr. Please adapt or discard as you need. --2006BC 11:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Australia

I have to admit you have a sparkling and mature sense of humour. --EuropracBHIT 22:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Politics

Are you a member of the ALP? This question might have been asked before

[edit] Kimbo

Why would Ambi hate Kim Carr more than you do? And yet remove perfectly well-sourced material from his article? It's all a bit beyond a mere toad's understanding. Intelligent Mr Toad 03:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My latest contribution to factional reconciliation: Mohamad Abbouche. Intelligent Mr Toad 04:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking without Hearing or Justification

I have blocked you for one month for abusive use of sockpuppets; a checkuser on this account revealed eight active sockpuppet accounts, all being used to violate Wikipedia policy. All the sockpuppets have been identified and blocked indefinitely. At the descretion of the Arbitration Committee, you may be unblocked to participate in the ongoing RfAr; you should contact them directly, by email, to discuss such a provision. Essjay Talk • Contact 07:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Essjay says there are eight active sockpuppet accounts. Totally not true. See above to see the truth. Essjay has admitted acting on Ambi's request. DarrenRay 15:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page and/or replace it with offensive content. Blanking your talk page will not remove the warnings from the page history. If you continue to blank your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Rory096 07:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you do it again. --Rory096 07:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been blocked and two other users also for nothing more than disagreeing with Ambi. I am no more a sockpuppet master anymore than those who follow Ambi's requests to block me. DarrenRay 15:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your statement here does not appear to match the evidence of edits matched with IP numbers. Note that you can still communicate with the AC by email, as you have been - David Gerard 18:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Your statement here does not appear to match the reality that I am not Benjamin Cass or Alex Chan (both living human beings known to me). I have been blocked on spurious grounds. That much is very obvious by now. Note: David Gerard is a friend of Ambi's real life persona. DarrenRay 20:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked from providing evidence and responding to claims

I am unable to add evidence to the evidence sub-page. Please unblock so I might do so. I have to say. DarrenRay 05:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll put your page onto my watchlist. If you want to make a statement regarding your case please post it here with instructions as to which page it should go to and I will submit it for you*. Likewise, if you wish to make one statement requesting unblocking I'll pass it on to the admins noticeboard or the arbitration page (your choice). I'm not willing to inilaterally reverse another admin's block given that he knows more about the case than I do. --kingboyk 09:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC) *Note that we're in different hemispheres so there might be a delay.
I have made a request for a temporary injunction permitting you to edit only the arbitration-related pages and your user/user talk pages. Bear in mind that this request may not be granted. In such a case, you will have to submit evidence either on this page, or to the arbitration committee directly through email. Johnleemk | Talk 16:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

--Fasten 12:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite Blocking

Why have Benjamin Cass and Alex Chan been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia:Indefinitely_blocked_users Read this.] It seems it's not sockpuppets who are blocked indefinitely but ABUSIVE ones. They are not sockpuppets and they have engaged in no abuse.

Would appreciate a response. DarrenRay 10:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)