Jump to content

User talk:Okip

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Okip (talk | contribs) at 09:40, 12 April 2010 (→‎Blocked: saving then deleting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Unreferenced living persons contest
Please help us build this contest.
Your suggestions are warmly welcome.
>> Sign up now. <<
Click here to leave me a message

Category:All unreferenced BLPs

{{db-r2}} 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MovePage/ABC&wpNewTitle=Thispage

"Disagreeable and closed to new ideas - that's the picture that emerges of contributors to...Wikipedia from a survey of their psychological attributes." Aldhous, Peter (January 03, 2009). "Psychologist finds Wikipedians grumpy and closed-minded". NewScientist. Retrieved 2009-05-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Source: "Personality Characteristics of Wikipedia Members" CyberPsychology & Behavior (DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0225)

This project does not exist to help editors grow a thicker skin. Our mission is to build an encyclopedia, not establish limits for low-level abuse that we think our volunteer editors should be willing to suffer. If we drive away more people than we attract, then it's a genuine loss to the project and we should fix it rather than label those who would prefer to work in a civil environment as "thin skinned." -- User:Cool Hand Luke [2]

The problem is that our enforcement of civility and NPA has historically been quite selective. If you're unpopular or unpowerful and criticizing somebody popular or powerful, you are likely to be blocked. The other way around, not so much. We ought to come up with objective standards and stick to them. -- User:Jehochman[3]

A reliable measure of prejudice is how many mistakes a person gets forgiven. --Durova

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/RfA_Report

...as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 75% support. Nominations which receive less than 70% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Best welcome template: User:AxG/WikiWelcome1

wikipediareview: History of wikipedia

Talkback

Hello, Okip. You have new messages at User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.
Message added 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I responded. Sorry for the sporadic editing. Tim1357 (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[]

Hmm, I see you have gotten frustrated by me. I want to apologize for whatever I may have said to upset you. I don't like seeing you do all that work to try and transfer all the Wikiprojects from the category page to the template page. Let me see if I can get an automated process to do that for you. Otherwise, thank you for all the help you've been. You are the kind of editor that makes wikipedia work cleanly.
Regards,
Tim1357 (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[]
see my comments on your talk page, sorry for the confusion! Okip 00:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[]

Response to Rubin

Pookzta‎

From user talk:Okip.

Are you trying to get yourself banned? It's unlikely that he could get what he wants into the Wikipedia article, because it's not supported by credible sources. However, he could have gotten unblocked if he was willing to restrict himself to making comments which haven't been refuted, and not repeatedly making WP:BOLD edits contrary to consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[]

Resorting to threats does not help build relationships Mr. Rubin. Please let me know what policies I am breaking by writing on User:Pookzta‎ page, and I will refactor them if they have any merit. Suggesting a wikiproject of like minded editors which do not share your personal point of view, is not against the rules. I feel that if editors can threaten Pookzta and hand out barnstars referring subtly to Pookzta as a "clueless n00b", (if this is the fact the reason why JzG gave you a barnstar) I can message Pookzta about some of his options within the rules, and explain what a bullying nasty atmosphere wikipedia often is too new editors.
I have not read all of the statements and edits made by Pookzta. But I am aware of some of the history of your edits, and the edits of those editors you associate with, and I feel that you can be rather dismissive to "clueless n00bs" and those who do not share your POV.
The ANI and block, on its face, sounded like a bad block against a "clueless n00b". Okip 08:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I've had enough of this. This is really inappropriate and I don't care to get into a technical detail of why but the background mentality has to stop. I find your decision to comment at Wikipedia:Editor review/Multixfer just creating a hostile environment and I would like to ask that an admin who considers unblocking you wait until you indicate an actual interest in improving the encyclopedia over creating drama. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[]

Reason for block: "vandalism", "[[Wikipedia:Vandalism|abuse of editing privileges]]". There was no vandalism in this case, by all definitions of the word.

Wikipedia:Editor review/A Nobody

Extremely negative comments from a variety of editors, starting with editor User:Kww. These negative comments where removed by A Nobody, and restored several times, causing several edit wars on the page, which spilled over to other pages.

Wikipedia:Editor review/Multixfer

My comments,[4]

Negative comments in editor reviews are allowable or not allowable?
User talk
Pookzta

User talk:Pookzta was blocked by JzG for a "truther agenda", in JzG's own words, his violations were:

  1. "disruptive campaigning over the deletion of Judy Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)."
  2. being a "single-purpose account"
  3. "obsessive use of doctoral titles" (no violation here)
  4. "discussions take the form of endless repetition of the same assertions without modification or concession to the points made." (i.e. not agreeing with editors whose POV JzG personally supports). [5]

Should a administrator who calls editors edits a "truther agenda" and who acknowledges that:

"I have a negative view of single-purpose accounts who are here to push WP:TRUTH at all costs and who WP:FORUMSHOP and who show no signs at all of understanding and learning from feedback. The context of long-term POV-pushing by Truthers is only a minor factor in this. And yes, I also have a negative view of anyone who is here to push fringe views, that is by no means restricted to 9/11 nor is it a problem"

Be blocking editors with alternative views? [6]

After Arthur Rubin replied on blocked editors Pookzta page on 06:34, 10 April 2010,[7], at 21:13, 10 April 2010 JZG gave Arthur Rubin a barnstar calling Pookzta, a "clueless n00b". Should an administrator continue to launch personal attacks against editors? JzG is the only administrator I know who has told editors to fuck off repeatedly, in a variety of different ways,[8] and who is still an administrator. On the same talk ANI, calling an editor a "troll"[9] a couple of months ago, JzG wrote: "Idiot template for an iddiot, Please stop being a dick. If you continue to be a fuckwit, as you did at user talk:JzG you will be slapped with a large wet fish. Now never ever post a template warning on my talk page ever again, thanks all the same. [10]

Multixfer himself called Pookzta a troll.[11]

I have seen these editors who have had alternative views be blocked by several admins, they state policy reasons, but most have the same intolerant attitude towards alternative views which JzG does.

If this is escalated, which I sincerely hope it is not, I will ask that JzG should no longer block editors who he has an extreme POV conflicts with, we will have to address the other repeated issues, including NPA attacks, biting new editors, and continued threats (i.e. battleground mentality) to those who disagree with him. There have already been three RFCs discussing this behavior.

My posting on Pookzta

My posting on Pookzta page had three portions:

  1. My opinion that editors who have a strong POV supporting the official version of 9/11 have silenced editors. JzG quote above shows this, let alone the other cases. Pookzta was in fact silenced by being blocked, and JzG is very supportive of the official version of 9/11, by his nasty comments to other editors.
  2. My suggestions to Pookzta to help him organize an effect voice on wikipedia, the same advice I have given to other editors who I feel are unfairly silenced.
  3. Predicting, with 100% accuracy the reaction to my post, quoting an academic study on Wikipedia and WP:Mock.

Okip 09:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[]

Punishing people for "Disruption" has a dark history in all countries[1] Often these charges are weighed against people whose only crime that those in authority can tag on the person is "disruption". In almost all cases these punishments are because those in power do not care for the core criticism and simply want to silence the critic. Okip 09:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[]

  1. ^ including the United States, see for example the story behind "don't yell fire in crowded theater".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Okip&oldid=355508389"