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 11:16, 12 April 2010. 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)[]

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)[]

I do not want to escalate this further, I suspect no one else does too, everyone dreads these top level dispute resolutions. I have already asked JClemens to be a mediator, and I would like another admin to be a mediator too.
The two other calm admins, both respected in the community, suggested before by several editors who I often disagree with, are out for private reasons.
Once these two admins agree, Jclemens and ??? I will post a notice on my talk page, similar to User_talk:Betacommand's.
Okip 11:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[]

;Points to keep in mind:

  1. I am not the administrator who calls other editors derogatory terms such as "truthers"[4], who blocked Pookzta for expressing his opposing views and working within the framework of wikipedia,
  2. I am not the editor who gave another editor a barnstar for his comments to Pookzta, calling Pookzta a "clueless n00b"[5]
  3. I am not the editor who escalated this to ANI.

My only "disruption" that Ricky81682 blocked me for, was expressing to a new editor my disgust my opinion at how wikipedia works, and offering suggestions to help this new editor. Then when I was sent to ANI by an editor who has a history of biting new editors, I made comments, with edit history quoting other editors, to back up those comments.

Ricky81682 reasons for blocking me:

  • Ricky81682 First reason: "vandalism", "[[Wikipedia:Vandalism|abuse of editing privileges]]". There was no vandalism in this case, by all definitions of the word. Ricky81682 knows this.
  • Ricky81682 Second reason: "I find your decision to comment at Wikipedia:Editor review/Multixfer just creating a hostile environment"
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,[6]

Negative comments in editor reviews are allowable or not allowable?
  • Ricky81682 Third reason: "This is really inappropriate and I don't care to get into a technical detail of why but the background mentality has to stop."

My posting on User talk: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 in the ANI shows this, let alone the other cases I have been involved with. please keep in mind, I think 99% of what conspiracy theorists believe is bullshit, but I think there is enough people who believe this bullshit that it should be on wikipedia. Pookzta was in fact silenced by being blocked, and JzG is very supportive of the official version of 9/11, which is clear by his comments above.
  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.
WP:INVOLVED
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"[7]
...Be blocking editors with alternative views?
JzG "Clueless n00bs" and continued NPA attacks
After Arthur Rubin replied on blocked editors Pookzta page on 06:34, 10 April 2010,[8], at 21:13, 10 April 2010 JZG gave Arthur Rubin a barnstar, for "trying to help clueless n00bs with a burr under their saddles.".[9] 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,[10] and who is still an administrator. Even on the same talk ANI, JzG called an editor a "troll"[11] 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. [12]
Multixfer himself called Pookzta a troll.[13]
Escalation
If this is escalated, which I sincerely hope it is not, I will ask that JzG should be prohibited from block editors who he has an extreme POV conflicts with. There are probably more involved blocks like this, which deserves further investigation. We will also have to address the other repeated issues, including NPA attacks, biting new editors, and continued threats of blocking (i.e. battleground mentality) to those who disagree with JzG. There have already been three RFCs discussing this behavior. Okip 10:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Okip&oldid=355518766"