The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Topic ban for "Youreallycan
Peter Damian
post Sun 19th February 2012, 8:25pm
Post #1


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I really don't quite follow what's going on here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...x_Off2riorob.29

Who are the goodies and who are the baddies? The subject of the proposed ban is against LGBT so that makes him very bad. On the other hand he opposes BLP violations, which makes him a saint (see below)

I did find to my interest that there is a whole category of Santorum images on Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category...-related_images

QUOTE

Some background for those who have not followed the loooong proceedings: A politician (Santorum) expressed absurd views regarding homosexuality; an LGBT activist attacked Santorum by associating his name with anal leakage; activists at Wikipedia amplified that attack by inserting mentions of it in multiple pages; a bunch of editors want to retain the essence of the attacks because it's verifiable/notable/exciting/free-speech. A very small number of editors like Youreallycan oppose the use of Wikipedia to link to attack sites (there's probably a large number of such editors, but they don't want to spend time in such a circus). The community should support editors who oppose BLP violations, even when the target is obnoxious. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TheKartingWikipedian
post Sun 19th February 2012, 8:36pm
Post #2


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri 11th Jul 2008, 6:00pm
Member No.: 7,007



Had a quick look and it's going nowhere. It's the the usual extended bluster from a bunch of big mouths. Just to confirm, looking at the heading it seems that Off2Riorob is now editing at Youreallycan - right?

This post has been edited by TheKartingWikipedian: Sun 19th February 2012, 8:37pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TheKartingWikipedian
post Sun 19th February 2012, 8:45pm
Post #3


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri 11th Jul 2008, 6:00pm
Member No.: 7,007



QUOTE(TheKartingWikipedian @ Sun 19th February 2012, 8:36pm) *

Had a quick look and it's going nowhere. It's the the usual extended bluster from a bunch of big mouths. Just to confirm, looking at the heading it seems that Off2Riorob is now editing at Youreallycan - right?



Answered my own question - yes he is, but why?

He was a one time ally of mine on the British Isles bollocks.

This post has been edited by TheKartingWikipedian: Sun 19th February 2012, 8:46pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Sun 19th February 2012, 8:47pm
Post #4


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



He tends to oppose the tagging of a BLB subject whether it is on ethnic, religious, or sexual grounds. Thus he pisses off the Jew taggers and the Gay taggers. The Jew taggers went for him a few months back, after which he had a name change a sort of abortive cleanstart. The gay taggers are having a go now.

He seems to be getting rather tetchy about the whole set up over the last few weeks, with various snipes.

Oh and a lot of the Santorum images were uploaded by Cirt.


This post has been edited by lilburne: Sun 19th February 2012, 8:51pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Sun 19th February 2012, 9:00pm
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 19th February 2012, 8:25pm) *

I really don't quite follow what's going on here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...x_Off2riorob.29

Who are the goodies and who are the baddies? The subject of the proposed ban is against LGBT so that makes him very bad. On the other hand he opposes BLP violations, which makes him a saint (see below)

I did find to my interest that there is a whole category of Santorum images on Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category...-related_images

QUOTE

Some background for those who have not followed the loooong proceedings: A politician (Santorum) expressed absurd views regarding homosexuality; an LGBT activist attacked Santorum by associating his name with anal leakage; activists at Wikipedia amplified that attack by inserting mentions of it in multiple pages; a bunch of editors want to retain the essence of the attacks because it's verifiable/notable/exciting/free-speech. A very small number of editors like Youreallycan oppose the use of Wikipedia to link to attack sites (there's probably a large number of such editors, but they don't want to spend time in such a circus). The community should support editors who oppose BLP violations, even when the target is obnoxious. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


Johnuniq is basically right. Youreallycan/Off2riorob's done very laudable BLP damage limitation. I think it would not be an exaggeration to say that he single-handedly resurrected the BLP noticeboard a couple of years ago or so, when the place was all tumbleweeds -- you'd post there, and nothing would happen. He's fixed hundreds of biographies. If anything, he's getting a bit strident with the Santorum lot because he's even more outnumbered in this case by those who want to shit on this particular BLP (almost literally).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Sun 19th February 2012, 9:18pm
Post #6


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



Youreallycan/Off2Riorob means well, but has little melt-downs from time to time. About as comfortable with LGBT topics as, say, Ottava is with naked children. Overall, does a lot for BLP issues, but would probably be happier if he just avoided a couple of areas.

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sun 19th February 2012, 8:47pm) *

Oh and a lot of the Santorum images were uploaded by Cirt.

I suspect all of the images in that category were uploaded by Cirt, but I haven't checked.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sun 19th February 2012, 9:23pm
Post #7


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 19th February 2012, 9:18pm) *

Youreallycan/Off2Riorob means well, but has little melt-downs from time to time. About as comfortable with LGBT topics as, say, Ottava is with naked children. Overall, does a lot for BLP issues, but would probably be happier if he just avoided a couple of areas.

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sun 19th February 2012, 8:47pm) *

Oh and a lot of the Santorum images were uploaded by Cirt.

I suspect all of the images in that category were uploaded by Cirt, but I haven't checked.



This is a nice one http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Two...atter_pic_1.jpg as it explains the ingredients for santorum.

QUOTE

Two of the ingredients necessary to make santorum ... Santorum is the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. Batch material prior to being mixed into frothy conclusion for santorum. This particular batch material was produced using a 50/50 percent solution of two ingredients: fecal matter obtained from hound/pit-bull mix canis lupus familiaris aged three years named tony, and a creamy white moisturizing lube compound mainly composed of water, mineral oil, glycerin, and petrolatum.


Oh and here are the ingredients when mixed http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San...rizing_lube.jpg

It's a bit like the way you mix up the two tubes of filler when you are repairing the woodworm, but I hope it doesn't get rock solid so quickly.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 19th February 2012, 9:25pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sun 19th February 2012, 9:40pm
Post #8


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 19th February 2012, 12:25pm) *

I really don't quite follow what's going on here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...x_Off2riorob.29

I really really hate these kinds of AN/I slobberings. It's almost impossible to summarize them, because they're utterly pointless.

If Off2riorob/Youreallycan/whatever is written up in this book, he would obviously deserve only a paragraph or two,
just to point out how a lunatic can make himself into a "figure of some note" on WP noticeboards.

And if Wikipedia were run by sane people, that entire chunk of text would be deleted as "disruption".
The place thrives on disruption, even as it outlaws it.

(Christ....now I need to devise an article about "AN/I Trolls". There have been quite a lot of them.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jd turk
post Sun 19th February 2012, 10:01pm
Post #9


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon 5th May 2008, 12:56am
Member No.: 5,976



Rob's done some good work on BLP, sure. But it's completely gone to his head, which wasn't that good to begin with.

He's been helpful in that past year or two, but that shouldn't disguise the fact that he's got some obvious problems. He's another editor whose entire identity is tied up in what he does. If you disagree with him, he goes from zero to batshit in no time at all, and collects unnecessary blocks and enemies, and causes drama because he's a crusader. Since he's working somewhere where no one sane wants to hang out for more than a day, he also feel entitled and superior to other editors who might not have his edit counts.

At the very least, he shouldn't be editing BLPs involving LGBT issues, just for his own sanity. He's got an obvious bias there, and once that's been noticed, he's a sitting duck for anyone who feels the other way to use him as an example of a biased editor.

As for being a valued editor, he's not. He can barely string a sentence together on some days. Looking at his history, sometimes it'll take him five edits to get a coherent thought out. But since he's a defender of BLP, and no one else seems to want to step up and defend it, he'll keep getting a pass.

Already that discussion has turned into a discussion about how Rob is just "frustrated," and his comments are all justified because of the area where he works, like he was drafted as a BLP defender and has to stay there.

He's got a lot of defenders at the AN thread, but I think they're just defending him because he's doing something they don't want to bother doing. Eric called him a "lunatic," and he's right. But he's a lunatic that's being encouraged by the system.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Sun 19th February 2012, 10:16pm
Post #10


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



It reminded me this pun Rob is off2rio! smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Number Six
post Mon 20th February 2012, 12:19am
Post #11


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon 18th May 2009, 11:44pm
Member No.: 11,806



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 19th February 2012, 9:23pm) *

This is a nice one http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Two...atter_pic_1.jpg as it explains the ingredients for santorum.

QUOTE

Two of the ingredients necessary to make santorum ... Santorum is the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. Batch material prior to being mixed into frothy conclusion for santorum. This particular batch material was produced using a 50/50 percent solution of two ingredients: fecal matter obtained from hound/pit-bull mix canis lupus familiaris aged three years named tony, and a creamy white moisturizing lube compound mainly composed of water, mineral oil, glycerin, and petrolatum.




Not Crisco? How disappointing.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jd turk
post Mon 20th February 2012, 1:56am
Post #12


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon 5th May 2008, 12:56am
Member No.: 5,976



QUOTE(Number Six @ Sun 19th February 2012, 6:19pm) *

Not Crisco? How disappointing.


Eh, it's like a cooking show. Everyone has their own twist on the recipe, I suppose.

The thread has been closed now with the regular amount of idiocy, with Rob saying he'll try and take it easy for a while. One editor called it a "snow close," which is not only not accurate, but also completely ignores the issues that led to the suggestion of a topic ban.

Yeah, just ignore Rob's problems completely, and keep patting him on the back for losing his mind. That'll make things all better.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Mon 20th February 2012, 1:13pm
Post #13


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



[ Runaway tangent about Silver Seren moved elsewhere ]
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd 8 14, 1:34am