http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheRealDonMurphy

Now. You are blocked under the other account so it is block evasion. Had you shown any promise of rational discussion here I would have ignored your return to wikipedia, but your rants have not not inspired me to turn a blind eye and also have discouraged me from bothering to afd your article, something I was going to do several weeks ago. Lesson to learn Murphy, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Edit: I probobly should clarify before someone points out that the honey method frequently doesnt work on WP either, that although the honey method sometimes doesn work, the vinegar one alienates everyone including people like me or other wp users who still edit who might otherwise have been inspired to help.

This was very good value.

Particularly this



Just before I left, I had to endure a long lecture from the obnoxious WJScribe about disloyalty and so on. I just wanted to say, look, I'm not a part of your cult and never was. Quite.

Essential reading. I note that the equally revolting HighinBC is mentioned. What was his part in all this? I think he came back as the 1==2 or some name like that.

[edit] more:



Although I don't know what ROTFLMFINGAO means.

Rolling On The Floor Laughing My FuckING Ass Off.

Oh I see - a variant of 'LOL'. Viridae, if you don't mind my saying: it seems a trifle arbitrary and subjective to have considered an article for deletion then be put off by the 'vinegar'.

[edit, having spotted your edit]. Vinegar as well as honey is a useful ingredient. (Fish and chips)

How on earth can you call for "rational discussion" and then in the same paragraph state you're failing to do the right thing on irrational, emotive grounds?

Because rational or at least civil discussion is more likely to inspire me to care about what Murphy wants. Irrational uncivil discussion like what he actually displays is not going to do anything of the sort. And I frankly can't be bothered stick my neck out and arguing for someone who is frankly so nasty at every turn.

We logicians don't like irrational. We don't mind incivil, indeed logicians are famous for it, so long as it is not ad hominem, i.e. the incivility, the attack upon the person, obscures the rational, logical grounds for the discussion.

It seems to me that 'RealDonMurphy' has made some valid, e.g. logically sound, rational &c points in the long rant.

[edit] I mean, look at the two points I highlighted above. They are very logical.

[edit] here's another:



I could put any of this stuff into medieval syllogistic form and show its true logical structure. So, rational it is. Incivil, I don't really care.

That may be true, but it has no bearing on him staying unblocked.

So is he blocked for being uncivil, illogical, being a sockpuppet, or what? I don't follow your reasoning.



Logically, this implies the block is for block evasion. But then you say this would have been ignored if the discussion had been rational, i.e. logical.

The block of that account is because he is using that account to circumvent the block on the other account - call that sockpuppetry or block evasion. However I usually overlook productive accounts even if they are being used for block evasion. Block on behaviour not necessarily history - if the current behaviour is enough to indicate that the past wont be repeated, forgive and forget. I ignore rather than make an annoucement because that just causes drama. However Murphy's interactions here, a site filled with peolpe more likely to be supportive of his cause has been nothing but uncivil meaning I blocked the new account as per the reasons above because there is no indication that the behaviour on that one wil be any different to the behaviour on the last.

...and this is all a pretty clear demonstration of why the wikipedia amateur-admin model fails to make decisions conducive to good content. "I like you? I think you're productive? No block for you, and forget about policy and precedent."

"But if I think you're "uncivil" to me? Eat your BLP and like it, sucker."

Wikipedia admins get something else back that's way better for them than a salary would be. It's that feeling of power, knowing they'll get the last word because they have the buttons.

Look, Viridae blocked email like a true Defender of the Wiki!

ColScott: posting your alternate accounts to a public forum is a bad idea. Even for those who have "left" Wikipedia Review under the guise of... erm, anyway... it's much better to just hint at it and have people hunting them.

Or not make any at all and wait for your name to come up in discussions about sock(puppet)-sniffing :-D

Uffda.

Ergo I can start a new account and edit the medieval philosophy article? Or are there bigger guns out there still?

Why contribute to the credibility of a deme that will turn around and use that credibility to discredit you?

Jonny

I had to finish the Medieval philosophy article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=198644009

I'm also curious to see what will happen.

could it be that don is inspired by the recent JzG-Sidaway line of arguments that civility doesn't involve not using dirty words, but kowtowing to jimbo & his wormtongues? I think Don's failing on both counts, so doesn't look good.

Been There, Done That

No Longer Curious …

Blue

Jonny

So, er, what happened?

Alas! All the good histories are long stories …

Here's a point in medias e-rase …

Jonny

The day I am forced to be nice to terroristic scum like yourself is the day I kill myself.

I will end up owning your sad little illegal cult.

Ummm, as stupid as most cultists are, I think the user name would have been a dead give away. Even Ryan Bushby could have figured out.

There are other or bigger guns, as well as all you have is Viridae's current word: there is no guarantee it won't change at whim.

There are other guns (see the other thread just underneath)

Smart people who do not tolerate fools well generally speak their arguments in deeply sarcastic attacks against their perceived enemies.

I'm guessing you don't like being called a fool. The question here is not your personal feelings, but whether or not you actually are a fool.

This is not a question you can answer honestly. You should have withdrawn yourself from the debate, especially in light of your engagement with Murphy in an off-wiki forum (to wit: here).

But ethical matters like this are apparently beyond your typical teenage admin. There really should be a minimum age. Maybe 40? But age suggests identity requirements and, well, you don't need to recoil in terror at that suggestion, as it is expected.



As Damian notes, you can't perceive the argument due to your own emotive responses. Congratulations, you've been trolled! And in that, you have disgraced yourself and the project. Might I suggest a resignation of your precious bit? (I'm serious: had it been me, I would.)

Now that, is what I am talking about...

Viridae has been nothing been but open and friendly here. I hope that the staff and moderators aren't going to tolerate him being called "terrorist scum"; that's a really easy way to lose people like Viridae. And I for one would much rather see ColScott go than Viridae.

Should I take this to the WRR to avoid diverging the topic?

I agree. The stuff on the WP talk page was amusing, almost. This has gone too far. Viridae is a reasonable bloke. I don't agree with the action he took here, but, .... too far.

The quote was "terroristic scum", perhaps a subtle difference. There is also the question of target: was the comment personal or general? That is, would Murphy say exactly the same thing to any administrator?

My guess is that he would (if he hasn't already done so). He'll probably say the same thing to any supporter of the BLP.

Given what is at stake, is Murphy really unjustified? If I had a BLP over there, I would be amazingly upset about it. I think anyone would be.



Since Viridae has blocked the guy at Wikipedia, I say Viridae has removed himself from being able to comment on the matter of Murphy v. Wikipedia here, as he is no longer an impartial source. A similar statement can be offered against Murphy though. And on those theories, if anyone need to be throttled, both should be: WR is not a court of appeal. Focus could be on discussing the generalities of this issue, and using only specific cases to highlight the arguments (whichever way they are argued).

Frankly I want to see that finished so I would have ignored you had i known the existance of your account - seems to me you would have been productive.

SING IT OUT BRO..... Wikipeidia = Cult of the lie,

Hey Viridae, I suspect the new vandal is YOU.

Am I wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Murphy

Not that I was expecting to become an admin in the next 13 years, but why 40? Do we have any reason to believe that the admins aged over 40 are more ethical than the teenage ones? Shrewder and wilier maybe.

I think V. is involved with some of the Irish articles and hence this is a personal comment. I could be confusing V. with someone else though?



I think you're getting confused here- this is not wikipedia. Even there, editors aren't required to be neutral all the time in discussions about articles- and here there's no -requirement- of it, as I understand it. It's a discussion forum.

And I agree with the bloke who said Viridae might be driven off- as has happened with other contributors here in the last week or so, in response to Col and other flamers.

Some established user has taken it upon themselves to don a mask, create a sockpuppet and goad Murphy by filling up the biography.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RTFA

We saw all this with the Brandt article. If someone struggles against the borg, the followers put on hoods and tighten their grip on the subject.

It says what he's like- as we've seen on this forum- and it seems to be sourced.


It just says he's a bit blunt etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=198703519

Squeakbox removed a sentence saying who he's married to (which was sourced.) I don't see why simply mentioning, backed up by a paper, who someone's married to is wrong, but then I don't know the backstory.

Not leaving, I have thicker skin than that - especially when it comes to irrational ranters like JoJo and ColScott.

I'm glad to hear it. Nonetheless, I hope staff and moderators or WHOEVER is in charge hear that it's not just the target of such trash that won't want to stick around if it goes unchecked.

Oh and thanks for the words of support Miltopia, appreciated.

are you 7 years old?

You're the one whose maturity is put in question by comments like that.

Wtf are you talking about? Guy acts all offended just like my seven year old niece would, so I asked him if he was seven. If he is older then that is just sad man.

Look folks, like it or not, we've always been more tolerant of people who are unwilling subjects of BLP articles on WP than just about any other class of member. Even to the point of tolerating this particular subject against the wishes of one of our own moderators, which quite frankly was one of the most difficult things we've ever done, if not the most difficult since I've been on the staff here. (Admittedly, the whle thing with Blissy was pretty bad too... )

Sure, it would be better if Mr. Murphy here wouldn't use phrases like "terroristic scum." But WP must be made to understand that these are the feelings they generate. This is the result of their action or inaction; this is what they have built. It's not what I or Wikipedia Review or Don Murphy have built, and we're under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to accept their arbitray and capricious "policies" with respect to their effect on anyone's life and reputation.

As onerous and unsavory as it is, these points have to be made; these issues have to be addressed. Someone has to do it. If people are offended or insulted, so be it.

Having said all that, our willingness to put up with this stuff isn't unlimited. If Murphy weren't a BLP subject, he probably would have been asked to vacate the premises quite some time ago... And yes, every new incident brings us closer to that point despite his having that status. But none of that changes the situation regarding the article about him. That remains as long as the article exists, and as long as he objects to its existence.

I am just not sure what you would like me to do. Be NICE to people like Viridae and Ryulong? Is that what you want?

I just threw up in my mouth.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Don_Murphy#Content_dispute

RTFA is clearly somebody I outed using a sockpuppet. He is determined to push his new article through. Why is that okay? He uses a puppet but no one else gets to?

I am seriously considering giving prizes- like posters, tickets, dvds- to fans so that they will edit that article every minute of every day until they are forced to protect it permanently.

Not at all - I'm saying there are ways to attack people you oppose, even violently oppose, without lowering this website's standards (of discourse, behavior, whatever you want to call it) to the point at which people start leaving because we "haven't banned you yet." Which, presumably, would be counter-productive.

For example, instead of "terroristic scum," you could have written "revenge-driven brain donors," "arrogant little basement-dwellers," or even just "twatfaces." The word "terroristic" is too connotative, and a hot-button for almost everyone... and "scum" (while nowhere near as bad) is just, well, overused.


Good idea!

Unfortunately, I already bought a copy of "Shoot 'Em Up"...

It could be any number of people. Not necessarily someone you outed. In fact, I tend to think it is a more experienced figure, and certainly a regular reader of this site.

Whoever it is, they know what they're doing. And they know how to poke a fire.

Yes but doesn't it violate their own policies?

I was wondering who that RTFA character was. He obviously has experience editing and have some idea of the conflict. Why the fuck he would want to start the conflict up again with his possible name to out I have no idea.

You assume that any person who edits anonymously on Wikipedia, particularly to "stir up shit," doesn't want his real identity exposed.

Incorrect assumption.