User talk:Wikigiraffes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been temporarily protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from causing disruption.

 This page is currently protected from editing to prevent Wikigiraffes (talk • contribs • block logauto) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template.
If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

Contents

Julian Baggini

The debate over this page moved, at Slim's initiative to the BLP noticeboard. However, it should really be conducted either here or on Baginni's talk page. As Wikigiraffes has been blocked, I think it is best to carry it on here.

Slim makes his/her case

I would appreciate more eyes on this, and some administrative help if necessary.

Julian Baggini (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is a British philosopher and writer that I created a stub in 2005. In June 2006, Docmartincohen (talk · contribs) — who was engaged in a non-notable, real-life dispute with Baggini — added some unsourced and poorly sourced material about that dispute, in violation of BLP. [1] The material was removed by Baggini himself, editing as Hickleup (talk · contribs). [2] Baggini has acknowledged that he is Hickleup. [3]

FriendofWikigiraffes adds: SlimVirgin also edited the pages (an the history) at this time.

In May this year, 90.17.9.22 (talk · contribs) (who appears to be Docmartincohen, or connected in some way)

- FriendofWikigiraffes this is unacceptable POV and innuendo about a LP -

restored the material about the dispute, and made certain other claims about Baggini. [4] [5]

Baggini complained to the Foundation/OTRS, and separately to me. I reverted and semi-protected the page. The anon e-mailed a pretty rude complaint to me

- again, this is unsubstantiated and obvioulsy contrary to WIkipedia policy. Can I say Slim emailed me a threatening note warning me to leave Wikipedia or ...? No I can't and I would not want to. But Slim makes these false claims with impunity, it seems. (FriendofWikigiraffes)

and, this time as Wikigiraffes (talk · contribs), starting posting insults (again, these are not 'insults' but responses to editing issues) - FriendofWikigiraffes) on the talk page e.g. [6] [7]. Tim Vickers arrived to endorse the semi-protection, [8] and several other editors posted in support of it. [9] PilotGuy admin-deleted the disputed material. [10]

Still posting as Wikigiraffe, the anon has

-Now come on, (IF SOMEONE IS LOGGED IN AS WIKIGIRAFFES THEY ARE NOT 'AN ANON'- how can this sort of innuendo be allowed - especially on the BLP noticeboard! - FriendofWikigiraffes

... started posting the same material to the talk page and restoring it when it's removed, [11] [12] claiming there is a sinister conspiracy to silence him. It has reached the stage where a block might have to be considered, but because I started the stub and have been accused of being involved in an evil plot, I'm reluctant to do it myself. More eyes would therefore be appreciated. SlimVirgin talk|edits 20:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have left a final warning on Wikigiraffes (talk · contribs) talk page, explaining in detail the problemtic nature of the material and the consequences (blocking) that would result from its readdition. CIreland (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(This user should consider their role in preventing a debate suggested by other admin. - FriendofWikigiraffes)

Many thanks. SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I really hope that Docmartincohen (talk · contribs) is not really Dr. Martin Cohen, or I have to say I'm disappointed at the level of maturity of British philosophers. Hopefully, it is his teenage students or something like that. I'm not joking, Merzul (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(This user should consider their role in ENCOURAGING a debate that led directly to poor Wikigiraffes blocking - and yet they seem too AFRAID to raise a whisper in protest! - FriendofWikigiraffes)

I've blocked Wikigiraffes indefinitely because he went on a spree today with posts attempting to out me, which I've admin-deleted.

- Slim has themselves referred people to a site where they are 'outed' advising people to read 'the rumours there' So Wikigiraffes can hardly be accused to doing worse by quoting directly from the site. The 'insults' and 'abuse' seem to be only reporting that Slim was voted 'most abusive editor' and similar comments.. - FriendofWikigiraffes

There was also someone at the same time vandalizing my user subpages, and creating accounts such as (paraphrasing) User:Is she as bad as they say she is, which may have been him too.

(Wikigiraffes has NEVER vandalised any pages, and has indeed shown themselves only intersted in debate. This kind of false innuendo is however very typical of SLim and all those 'admin' who take it at face value should be aware that they are complicit in acts which are morally contemptible. - FriendofWikigiraffes]

If any other admin wants to take over, and reblock or unblock after a certain time, please do as you see fit. I did it myself only for the sake of speed to minimize the damage. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Slim, I, FriendofWikigiraffes, am prepared to take over, if you agree. I will look at all the issues and then we will perhaps reach a fairer view of the situation. Please use this, the WIkigiraffes talk page to start the debate.

86.220.115.144 (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC) [FriendofWikigiraffes]

what follows is the limited debate over the orignal edits to Baginni's page. It shows Wikigiraffe's was in the process of discussing and negoitating content and edits with other admin when Slim deleted their contributions and altering histories. But Why? Answering this question led to Wikigiraffes sudden blocking.

your 'evidence'

Look, here's how it is: Your 'evidence' is not suitable as evidence for several reasons, mainly because SlimVirgin, other considerable and (imho) valid criticisms about her behaviour notwithstanding, did absolutely the right thing at the Baginni page, like she quite frequently does. Also e.g. because Pilotguy is another admin and most certainly not a sockpuppet of SlimVirgin's (just like I'm not a sockpuppet of either of them, in case that isn't what you're assuming). Please keep in mind that Requests for arbitration is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If you honestly believe (I don't!) that there is anything wrong with how the situation was handled, you can ask for outside opinions (which have albeit already been provided by several people, each of them to the effect that she was indeed absolutely correct there), e.g. at requests for editor assistance. The responses, however, will most probably go in the same direction as those of all other users who have so far commented on the matter. In my opinion, it would be best not to add more to your 'evidence' to the case, ideally you might even want to consider removing it altogether. See also my comments here. You're welcome to contact me at my talk page if you have further questions. dorftrottel (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm not familiar with what has been deleted, I'm left with assuming good faith that there were sufficient reasons to do so. Since such matters are of course handled with the utmost respect for the personal rights of the article subject, information regarding deleted revisions is basically never handed out to third parties. If, as you say, you do not think [he] is very interesting, why not just let it go? If, on the other hand, you're interested in improving the article, you should propose changes at the article talk page, providing reliable sources for any proposed addition. However, you should not repeat any of the deleted information anywhere on Wikipedia. And I don't think anyone is taking deletion of page revisions lightly. dorftrottel (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, but a short notification and concise explanation would have been more effective. As far as the article is concerned, I recommend the approach outlined in this essay. dorftrottel (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning article: Julian Baggini

Hello. After seeing this article listed at the biographies of living person noticeboard, I reviewed the recent edits to the article and its talk page by all editors. The material that is the source of contention consists of a small amount of valid text but is largely what we refer to as original research i.e. it is opinion, editorial argument and extrapolation from primary sources. Moreover, it is substantially negative in tone and appears to presenting an unbalanced point of view. Original research and failure to attempt to present a neutral perspective are forbidden in all articles in Wikipedia. When the matter concerns a living individual this is enforced particularly strictly and, given the real harm that biased material can do, applies to all pages on Wikipedia, not just articles.

It is frequently the case that such material is not merely edited out of pages but expunged from the page history too. This is normal and is not, as you have implied, "falsification" or "mischief".

Earlier you were advised by a number of experienced editors that the material in question was unsuitable for Wikipedia. Regrettably, you have since chosen to continue to add the material to Wikipedia. Moreover, you have have implied that there has been wrong doing on the part of those that have removed or argued for the removal of the material. This is not the case.

Please do not add the material to any page on Wikipedia again. If you choose to do so then I or another administrator will remove it and block you from making further edits.

I hope that you understand how seriously we take biographies and how much care we must exercise in this regard.

CIreland (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard

The BLP noticeboard is not the place for rants concerning other editors. If you have a conflict with another editor, pursue Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for vandalism, BLP violations, & trying to out someone, following warnings from several admins. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "

There doesn't seem to be ANY evidence required for a block. Here is the case:

I edited a page advertised as needing more material. The material added - mostly direct quotations from the author that the page was about - was deleted by 'blanking' the page and the page was then protected. I then argued that the material should have been allowed as the basis for future edits, and accepted most of the criticisms of my first draft. An admin invited me to suggests a new text - I posted this on the Talk page and that too was blanked. The page in question was started by Slim, the blanking and protection were carried out by Slim and the edits to the Talk and history pages were apparently also by Slim. Slim attempted to link me to a real person, one Doctor Martin Cohen and I objected on the Noticeboard. This 'outing' is still there! If I offended by quoting publsihed matial on Slim and their activities, why the double standards? Slim makes a false and unevidenced claim that 'someone vandalised' their pages and that it must ergo be me! What sort of trial is this!

The violation of BLP argument rests on issues debated on the Talk pages. Admin like Merzul encouraged me to continue the debate there, as indeed it should have been possible to do so. You will find it hard to follow the debate though as Slim kep deleting sections of it and changing the relevant histories. The 'outing' is defensible becasue Slim herself has recommended on Wikipedia that people can read 'the rumours' about her on the source I quoted. I further noted that varous other reputable sources accused Slim of being an abusive admin etc etc. This is not, I think, 'vandalism'.

Wikigiraffes (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "Block is justified. New users who show up and immediately start attacking other editors are naturally and properly suspect. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.