How Long Before The Boot? Options

[ColScott]

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

This post has been edited by ColScott: Sun 16th March 2008, 7:49am

[Viridae]

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 post has been edited by Viridae: Sun 16th March 2008, 10:37am

[Peter Damian]

This was very good value.

Particularly this

Regardless, Wikipedia has policies, and everyone must obey them.

The Cult has policies and cultists must obey them- I am not one of them

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:

As for Jimbo, I could care less about that man. I'm all appreciative of what he's given society

is it contagious? I mean ROTFLMFINGAO- an inaccurate site any moron can edit is a gift?,

Although I don't know what ROTFLMFINGAO means.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 16th March 2008, 10:19am

[Viridae]

Although I don't know what ROTFLMFINGAO means.

Rolling On The Floor Laughing My FuckING Ass Off.

[Peter Damian]

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)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 16th March 2008, 11:10am

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

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.

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?

[Viridae]

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.

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.

[Peter Damian]

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:

but his personal actions whether against this place or in his personal life are none of my concern

his crimes against the cult don't interest you as a cultist? spoken like a true Manson Family Member

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.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 16th March 2008, 12:13pm

[Viridae]

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:

but his personal actions whether against this place or in his personal life are none of my concern

his crimes against the cult don't interest you as a cultist? spoken like a true Manson Family Member

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.

[Peter Damian]

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.

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,

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.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 16th March 2008, 12:20pm

[Viridae]

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.

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,

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.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

...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.

[Miltopia]

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

[Moulton]

Uffda.

[Peter Damian]

I usually overlook productive accounts even if they are being used for block evasion.

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

[Jonny Cache]

I usually overlook productive accounts even if they are being used for block evasion.

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

[Peter Damian]

I usually overlook productive accounts even if they are being used for block evasion.

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.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 16th March 2008, 3:58pm

[Piperdown]

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.

[Jonny Cache]

I usually overlook productive accounts even if they are being used for block evasion.

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.

Medieval Philosophy&diff=prev&oldid=198644009

I'm also curious to see what will happen.

Been There, Done That

No Longer Curious …

Blue

Jonny

[Peter Damian]

Been There, Done That
No Longer Curious …

So, er, what happened?