Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Law Lord

Reply to Statement by Baseball Bugs[edit]

I have actually been on Wikipedia quite a bit longer than 2 years. [1] --Law Lord (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been on Wikipedia for 20 years, 4 months and 3 days.

04:28, 3 January 2007 Law Lord (Talk | contribs | block) New user account. This is material that applies to en-WP. seicer | talk | contribs 06:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My statement was that after 2 years you should know better. Your claim that you've been here 4 years does nothing to support your side of the argument. If you haven't figured out in 2 or 4 years that the user page does not belong to you and that disruption is against the rules, maybe it is time for you to retire from here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Let's all abolish cilivity right now! Or did I miss that in all the fun? MikeHobday (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that my user page statement was disruption. At the worst, it was some feedback that more than several administrators should think about concerning their behavior. At the best, it was simply an explanation as to why I, like so many others, got fed up. --Law Lord (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You, as its author, are in no position to determine whether someone else finds it disruptive. If you've got a problem with an administrator's actions towards you, then take it to proper channels, don't put verbal shots on your page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins acting as jackbooted thugs to suppress criticism hardly help improve respect for admins as a group. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs, please? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one? *Dan T.* (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was right to remove that statement, as I've already indicated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was ~~npot~~not as far as I am concerned. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"npot"? Sorry, I don't know all the abbreviations. But the comment was inappropriate, and its removal was appropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, have we descended already to the level of criticizing people for typo's? In my opinion, the comment was not inappropriate, and the admins removing it are just very thin skinned and acted inappropriate. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not criticizing you for a typo. "He was npot" as a sentence did not make sense. I thought you were citing some obscure abbreviation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To parse it out...

"There is no free speech at Wikipedia" - That's a true statement. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia nor to insult other editors without cause.

"; given the background of this incident, as described at ANI," - Obviously.

"I am not inclined to oblige" - Obviously.

"in your snipe." - Which is a fair characterization of Law Lord's comment.

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, something does not jive here. The complainant is claiming that the comment was not directed at anyone in particular, that it was not triggered by any particular incident. If not, then where did it come from? If he has no issues with any administrators, then why is he making that comment? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And people say there's no need or purpose for sites like Wikipedia Review, because criticism of Wikipedia can and should take place right here on-wiki... some of you guys are proving this wrong right now. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the vaguest idea what you're getting at, so I'll just say again that if he has any problems with any particular admins and/or editors, he needs to pursue them through proper channels rather than taking pot-shots; and if he doesn't have any problems with any particular admins and/or editors, then his pot-shot is pointless. (Other than to create drama, which is pretty clearly what his goal was, and he succeeded.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It takes (at least) two to create drama. His original statement would have just sat there silently and dramalessly on his user page if a few other people didn't get the drama going by fighting to suppress it. (If drama fell in a forest, and nobody was there to add fuel to it, would it still make some lulz?) *Dan T.* (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at what led up to it, you can see that he was engaged in a dispute with SheffieldSteel, including calling him "biased and unfit to be an admin". Then he said he was "retiring". He put that comment there as "bait", so that once someone took that bait he could continue the dispute he was already having with SheffieldSteel. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure worked, didn't it? *Dan T.* (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It worked exactly as he planned. But his approach will catch up to him someday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, being subjected to countless attacks by you and others over the past 48 hours was exactly what I had hoped for during Christmas. I take great fun in people insulting me, and having the whole private OTRS case revived is also great fun. Heavy sarcasm --Law Lord (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You fired the first shot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, can we just stop this. All it has become is a useless, drama inducing, mudslinging fest. VX!^~~~ 23:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this?[edit]

So far I can see one – possibly two – people on one side of the argument, and a pile-on on the other; nobody's going to change anyone's mind, and all this is achieving is giving our critics new material to sneer at. Can someone close this and everybody go do something more useful? Some points of principle are worth arguing over, but this is really not. – iridescent 20:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is it OK if I say "some wikipedia editors are idiots" on my user page? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, yes, as long as you don't name names. I'll happily come out right now and say it: "Some Wikipedia editors are idiots, some are disruptive assholes, and some people who haven't been banned deserve to be". We have 8,542,565 editors, it would be more of a surprise if none of them were idiots. – iridescent 20:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, yes it is ok to say that. If you feel like it, you can even say that I am an idiot. The only thing I will do is shrug and move on. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, except I won't, because it's a rule violation, and I don't care how many editors that guy canvassed in order to win his case - he has violated several rules, and has forfeited any right to assumption of good faith. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he did not canvas me. I just tumbled over it. And he has not forfeited the right on good faith. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has forfeited AGF, due to several rule violations: personal attack, disruption, point-making, wikilawyering, and on and on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That post is not a personal attack? As long as I am being subjected to this kind of harassment, I think the RFC should stay open. Some people still need to get some new insights. --Law Lord (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can put a stop to this by owning up to what triggered your comment in the first place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you can do the same. Both of you have the personal choice to end this or not. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Do the same"? What "same"? I just want to know what incident or incidents inspired him to write that slanderous comment. Unless he just felt like writing it for no reason, just to set a trap to create some drama. Which he succeeded in doing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...with a little help from his ~~friends~~ enemies. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they are his enemies, then he made them that. A little detective work indicates that his comments were, in fact, a personal attack, and he's being allowed to get away with it. This does not speak well of wikipedia. But his approach will catch up eventually. Just probably not today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More on outcome[edit]

Not sure, where to add this, but certainly a desired outcome would also be that the constant attacks from different administrators against my person, could come to a halt. Stuff like this: [2] --Law Lord (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for promoting me to admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[3] [4] --Law Lord (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could put a stop to all of this by owning up to what inspired you to put that comment on your user page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quick reference to your canvassing efforts: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's pretty clear that this is about a dispute between Law Lord and Sheffield Steel, from early November, as with this item [13] in which Law Lord calls Steel "biased and unfit to be an admin". It's pretty clear that the talk page comment in question was directed at Steel, which he of course cannot own up to now as it would nullify his entire premise here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of that aggressive interchange was conveniently left out of the timeline shown below, which is made to appear as if his "non-personal" attack somehow arose from thin air. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of his other userpage entries show an interesting pattern, such as this one [14] from June 8, where he says "Why the people on Wikipedia suck"; this one [15] from November 7, in which he's claiming to be "banned" from posting on SheffieldSteel's page; and the one [16] in question, from the next day, which is obviously directed at SheffieldSteel. 38 days later, Steel asked him to remove it [17] as an obvious personal attack, and another user deleted that attack [18] on the 20th, which is when things began to accelerate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If, instead of "idiots", you put "Some Wikipedia editors are morons!" on your page, that would constitute a ~~More On~~ Moron Outcome, which the title of this section would appear to be seeking. :-) *Dan T.* (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! That's my schtick!!! >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law Lord banned from Danish Wikipedia[edit]

As a side note, why is it that Law Lord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) complained about the "rude" administrators (in the initial outcry) after being banned from the Danish Wikipedia? Can anyone translate? seicer | talk | contribs 06:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just Google translated it, which is sufficient: Rationale; Discussion; and it was apparently coordinated between administrators, WMF, and OTRS. Is there more insight into this? seicer | talk | contribs 06:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. seicer | talk | contribs 13:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, he qualifies as a Pruned Danish. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rather prefer my Danishes with cream cheese... l'aquatique |✡| talk 15:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to look at it is that he got creamed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Law Lord has resorted in doling out "warnings" for "personal attacks" for comments that resulted in Law Lord's ban at the Danish Wikipedia. Sorry, but that's not a personal attack; you initiated the RFC, so you need to stand up and be prepared to take in any statements that may be used against your statement. seicer | talk | contribs 16:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to the policy you use as basis for your assertion, that personal attacks (in this case "idiot") are allowed against people, who initiate a RFC. --Law Lord (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You left a template warning on the talk page of a user who's been here for nearly two years? Wow, that was rude. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I wonder if you've spotted any other rudeness. Perhaps in this very section? Let's not be one-sided. MikeHobday (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to outside view by Smashville[edit]

For the reason stated 1 sentence on my user page, I had semi-retired from Wikipedia. This explains my low amount of article-space edits for December. When my user page was attacked, I indeed came temporarily out of semi-retirement to attend to this. That explains the number of main space edits.

I also note, that your "outside view" does not comment on the question of RFC (see "outcome" section if you do not know, what the RFC is about). --Law Lord (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from RFC

He retired. Why would he be editing anything other than this page and those relating to it? Impolite admins (and those who aspire to be), like those who took offense and proved his point, are the ones who should be trout slapped for creating unnecessary drama. Check WP:CHIPSLAW, as it applies. And Baseball Bugs, baiting? Really? Are you serious? It's one sentence, and you want to call it baiting? One sentence that an admin felt compelled to remove and then protect for? Shameful, pathetic, ridiculous and dramatic. And Law Lord is being accused of stirring up drama? Please. Personal attack? My ass. لenna vecia 16:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did not "retire", or he wouldn't even know about the comment being removed. He posted that snide comment and then waited for someone to do something about it so that he could start this whole dramatic megillah. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? He did that? Show some proof or take your seat. Retirement isn't a promise never to return to the site. Retirement is a "I'm done editing." Assume your bad faith elsewhere, BB. You're not helping this situation. لenna vecia 17:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proof he didn't retire? How about the fact that we are in an RfC right now? Retired editors don't start RfCs... --Smashville^talk 17:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The proof is his single-purpose activity in Law Lord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). With that behavior, along with already having been banned from the Danish wikipedia, his good faith is looking pretty thin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actions at one wiki rarely have an affect at others---as a number of ADMINS/CRATS at different wiki's could tell you---believe it or not, there are actually people at other projects who are banned here! There are people at other projects who have been promoted to admin, despite an attrocious record here!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but where did I ever say that I thought he couldn't have it on the page? This one not so much, but the original one...who cares? He says he doesn't like admins without manners...I don't feel personally affronted by it...I get called stuff everyday...being told that if I didn't have manners, he would have enough of me...well, I wouldn't blame him...it's an extremely minor dispute and doesn't need to be at RfC. --Smashville^talk 17:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may qualify as the lamest RFC that I have participated in. seicer | talk | contribs 17:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right up there with the "I Received Death Threats" drama. --Smashville^talk 17:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never get any death threats. That just shows what my level of influence is here. :'( OK, so if this is an extremely lame RFC, how long do we have to put up with it? What will it take to get it shut down? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a wikistalker, though...that has to count for something...--Smashville^talk 18:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that guy. Well, I know where he lives, so I could do something about it if necessary. I'd just have call my cousin, Vito. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You people have got to be kidding me. It's a lame RFC because it was stupid to revert his page and protect it. If admins weren't so quick to abuse their position, we wouldn't have to deal with these types of RFCs. And the proof I was speaking of, which apparently was not as blatantly obvious as I thought, was regarding "He posted that snide comment and then waited for someone to do something about it so that he could start this whole dramatic megillah." I'll try to be more clear in the future. لenna vecia 17:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that! Love your feistiness Jenna! Maybe things will be more fair if we all speak our minds like you! Cheers! ;) Cheers dude (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proof is his single-purpose activity on this subject, despite allegedly being "retired". If he was "retired", he wouldn't be here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we start a RFC on a RFC? seicer | talk | contribs 17:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

er, he semi-retired... plus, I know plenty of people who have semi-retired only to return later or that kept a small trickle coming in. I semi retired in May/June---but still had well over 100 edits in both both months---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did SheffieldSteel use his admin tools to get rid of it? Seicer protected the page in good faith that another admin was offended by a comment on the page and considered it a personal attack...that's not an abuse of tools, that's assuming good faith. And considering the page has been unprotected, it's also irrelevant. We're essentially at RfC because SheffieldSteel, who just so happens to be an admin, used the "Undo" button once...a button that every single person on Wikipedia has. --Smashville^talk 18:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent, excellent point. He took that comment personally, and a series of nannies here (especially the one who posted it) have been telling him he had no right to take it personally. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Nannies" would seem to best describe the group that's fighting to keep the comments removed. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussions from main[edit]

Kimvdlinde[edit]

Cool it, son. This is not a dating service. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He, if giving someone a hug is dating, I am dating more than 100o people now. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hugging can lead to other things. Like kissing. And filing disruptive, frivolous RFC's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFC/Affection shown at Wikipedia seicer | talk | contribs 18:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that would mean I just saw a kid dating his mom just before he was sent off to school yesterday morning. : / Cheers dude (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, a school teacher 'dating' a student. seicer | talk | contribs 18:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got it bad...got it bad...got it bad... --Smashville^talk 18:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol :D Cheers dude (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I dating myself if I say that when I was growing up, a public display of affection, even hugging, did imply dating? --NE2 19:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait...you dated yourself? That's gotta be a weird breakup... --Smashville^talk 19:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you blue? seicer | talk | contribs 19:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dating yourself??? That is way too much information. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dtobias[edit]

Keep your body parts to yourself, please. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, that makes no sense. Cheers dude (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's asking us to personal attack one of his body parts. No, thanks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about mine then? Why you gotta be so picky! Cheers dude (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool your jets, flyboy. This is not a dating service. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok :P Cheers dude (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68[edit]

One could. Yet none of us has been banned from the Danish wikipedia. And all of us edit pages that don't necessarily have to do with defending a comment on our user pages. So just who is it that needs to get a grip or get a new hobby??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and

Users are finally telling it like it is around here. Never thought I'd see the day. Cheers Jennavecia! Cheers dude (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Never thought you'd see the day"? You've been here, what, 6 weeks? Or did you used to have a different ID? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No! I moved to a different state. I used to edit every now and then under a different IP. Cheers dude (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What state are you in now? Besides "denial"? >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exhaustion as well! }:D Cheers dude (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too much hugging and kissing will do that to ya. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction! Dating! It's dating! lol! Haven't you read the thread down below about some kid and his mom! Cheers dude (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Thin-skinned'? seicer | talk | contribs 19:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smashville[edit]

Comment I'm not sure what people are endorsing here. The first half of Smashville's comment reads like an inditement on LL for not posting more to the mainspace during his retirement. Thus, critical of LL. The second half of the comment reads like an intitement on the people who brought non-issue to RfC.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LL is the one that brought it to RfC. --Smashville^talk 23:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He thought long and hard about it. He use his LL bean. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had mis read it, I thought somebody else brought it against LL. Thanks.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he took this stupid issue to WP:ANI and lost, so he started this stupid RFC about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is stupid... but no more stupid than taking offense at a generic farewell speach that can be seen at scores of other users... often in much more colorful language and terms.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your place, nor mine, nor especially The Law Lord's, to tell someone else what they should or should not be offended by. Also, it was not a "farewell speech", it was bait. If he had truly retired, he wouldn't have seen it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butkiss.. I know a number of editors continue to monitor their pages and other activities long after they depart. Plus, he didn't retire, he SEMI-retired. You need thicker skin than this to be an admin. I'm sorry, I'm a relatively unobtrusive admin, but I've been called worse. Plus, let's assume that you are right, and it was directed at Steel? The smart move is to ignore it and move on... who is going to notice the talk page of a retired user? Furthermore, who is going to investigate to figure out what the catylyst was? Let the person leave and get the final word... I lay the blame of this drama on the footsteps of those who felt they had to get the final word. The "offending" comment was so generic, that NOBODY would have realized who the admin in question was... heck, I doubt that it was solely about Steel, more likely he was the last straw. I personally am not going to investigate it... I've seen much worse. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the NFL Hall of Famer out of this. :) I've got news for you - I've been called much worse than this also. I don't really care what some idiot IP address user calls me. All I care about is whether he's disrupting wikipedia. Look how much time has been spent on this topic, by me and others. And, to his credit, SheffieldSteel has pretty much divorced himself from it. It's not our place to tell him whether he should be offended by something. And it is actually the supposedly "retired" user who so desperately wants the last word, based on a fictional "freedom of speech" claim here. He's "semi-retired" only in that this one blurb has become his total focus here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So let him have his two bytes of memory and move on. Plenty of other people have left with much more inflamatory speaches. This is nothing to see.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "his". Users don't own their user pages. He doesn't seem to understand that point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neither do you own his user page, even though you're acting as if you think you're the boss of it and can dictate terms about it even though the vast majority of people who have commented on the situation seem to disagree. I'm tempted to find something on your user page that I claim to be offended by, then edit-war to take it out, but that would be a WP:POINT violation on my part. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, you keep harping on the "fictional 'freedom of speech' claim", but you also keep bringing up this fictional policy that prohibits comments that offend others. NPA and CIV don't cover it, so where is it? لenna vecia 14:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think WP:CIV covers comments meant to offend others, I'm not sure what to say. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIV doesn't cover general statements of truth, like "admins with no manners". By no stretch of the imagination is that an uncivil comment. لenna vecia 15:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a rationale uninvolved party every equate the statement in question to sheffield? No. Would a rationale univolved party ever read the statement and say, "I can understand that, there are idiots in the ranks of the admin corp?" Yes. If somebody wants to read it in context of themself, that is their perjogative, but it is a simple fact, there are idiots who do not deserve to have the bit... but we can't do anything about it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Baseball Bugs endorsement[edit]

*sigh* l'aquatique |✡| talk 17:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder[edit]

Responses to Balloonman endorsement[edit]

Nicely put! =) Cheers dude (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennavecia[edit]

Responses to Cheers dude endorsement[edit]

That's just one of many. لenna vecia 17:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Smashville[edit]

extremely tame --- And the understatement of the RfC goes to Smashville ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

The comment was clearly directed at SheffieldSteel, and it is Steel's prerogative to determine if it was uncivil, not that of the guy who posted it. Steel could have blocked this guy, but instead simply deleted that comment, like any offended editor might. The Law Lord has shown no interest in establishing rapport with anyone, being a self-admitted cynic and misanthrope, and he has already been banned from the Danish wikipedia. The Law Lord's behavior pattern has nullified any expectation of good faith. He's lucky he's not already indef-blocked here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely wrong. For someone that hangs around ANI so much, I'm surprised to see this from you. Clearly, as the "attacked" (that really is laughable, by the way) party, he would have zero right to block. Doing so would land him at RFAR. As I stated, no one has the right to be unoffended. He had no business removing the comment. It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a personal attack. It was not a personal comment. It was a general statement. The fact that he is banned on another project, as a few of you choose to state repeatedly, is irrelevant. As someone else noted above when he noted he's been on Wikipedia for several years, his edits to the Danish Wikipedia don't matter, this is an issue on the English Wikipedia. Don't get to have it both ways. So stay focused on where we're at and what we're doing. He's not rocking a global ban, so stop bringing it up like it matters here. And note that your behavior here has left you no room to call out good faith on anyone else. He may be, in your opinion, lucky he's not already indef-blocked here, but you should note that it is your opinion, as I am of the opinion that you aspire to be an admin but have, at least at this point in time, absolutely no chance of obtaining it. لenna vecia 05:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"could have blocked" in the sense that he "had the power to block", and probably would have been rung up for it as you say. But he didn't do that, he simply deleted the comment, as any offended editor might, and the supposedly "retired" user took that opportunity to create all this nonsensical drama. It was obviously directed at SheffieldSteel, which you can determine simply by looking at what was going on prior to it. And it is not your place to decide whether he should have been offended or not. Of course, The Law Lord is not quite stupid enough to own up to why he made that comment, as it would negate his premise for this "free speech" crusade that he's on. And his time at the Danish wikipedia does figure into it, as he claims to have been on wikipedia for 4 years. But he has only been on English wikipedia for less than 2. He's counting his Danish wikipedia time, while at the same time dodging the question of how he got kicked out there. As far as my being an admin, I have no interest in the job, so you need not worry. However, I've seen users less disruptive than The Law Lord who've been permanently booted. So he is, in fact, lucky he's still here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does Baseball Bug's non-desire for adminship have anything to do with this RFC Jenna? None at all. Find something else to stir the pot with, please. seicer | talk | contribs 05:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Seicer, we could get into the inappropriate protection of the guy's page, but I can already tell that would go no where. Baseball Bugs has found it necessary to fling insults and make assumptions all over this RFC, so if he's open to make such rude opinions, he should be open to take them, too. He thinks a general statement on a user page can be considered a personal attack if he knows about the incident the statement is based off of, and he's drawing all these conclusions from his "evidence" and stating them as fact. In turn, I'm drawing the conclusion that since he hangs out at ANI like it's the Wal-Mart of Podunk Hollow that his aspirations are higher than being a night guard to our WPPD. Regardless, the fact remains, Baseball Bugs is talking about how Sheffield "could have blocked" even though he would have gotten spanked for it, about how Law Lord's 2+ years on the Danish Wikipedia don't count when determining how long he's been on Wikipedia, because this matter is on the English Wikipedia; yet he wants to repeatedly mention that he's blocked from the Danish Wikipedia, as if we're supposed to take some action here based on that. Maybe all these comments from BB make sense when looking at them through a mirror, but as it is they're all backwards from my view. So, Baseball Bugs, now that we've cleared that up, I never said that Sheffield should not have been offended. I said it doesn't matter if he was offended. There's no policy that says he has a right to be unoffended. Thus, as I said in my statement, anyone who finds their delicate sensibilities upset can grab a tissue, blow their nose and then suck it up. Anyone can make any general statement they feel so inclined to make about any contentious situation. As long as they keep it generalized, it doesn't violate any policy. So draw all the conclusions you want, but it should only affect you. The page statement should not have been removed and the page should not have been protected. لenna vecia 13:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't excuse your making this out and out personal. You should either refactor the comment or recuse yourself if you are going to take or make something so personal. --Smashville^talk 14:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse myself from what? Making observations? It was made personal when the general statement was marked as a personal attack. I did not make this personal. لenna vecia 03:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

68.160.130.147[edit]

Why does the strong support for Dan Tobias made by 68.160.130.147 keep getting removed? [19] [20] Just wondering. --Law Lord (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now blocked for a couple of days. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back as 68.163.107.39, reported to AIV. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They only blocked him for 6 hours. I guess they like seeing the same IP's pop up over and over. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that was the previous block, a few hours ago, since expired; he still awaits a new block, hopefully a longer one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another one: 18.85.10.24 Someone's asleep at the switch at WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And others since. All short-term blocked, so they might turn up again, although this character seems to be grabbing random IP addresses from thin air. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just Moulton's usual pre-Hammurabic wounding stuff. --NE2 01:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and semi'ed the page for +- 3 days, until I can get to looking at the sock case... maybe tomorrow. Is there an open SSP on this? seicer | talk | contribs 01:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe semi-protecting the talk page would be a good thing to do also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done for a week, per request at AIV. Jclemens (talk) 08:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certification[edit]

A minor point, but I note that Law Lord is the only person who has certified this dispute so far. I'm certainly not a slave to WP:PROCESS, but there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing this. Especially since the talk page is starting a slow, downward spiral to people taking pot shots at each other. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is a self-certified RFC, I don't think it requires a second certification. لenna vecia 15:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE SheffieldSteel's statement[edit]

This may sound a little heartless, but the statement by SheffieldSteel does not change my opinion one iota. If LL had mentioned you by name, then yes, I would agree. But just because you were involved in a dispute with him, does not mean that the comment was directed exclusively at you (regardless of what you or Bugs may think.) I get the sense that LL has had other encounter's with admins besides you, they could be equally insulted. The statement was a generality about a problem that a lot of users complain about---and about how ANI doesn't address admin misbehavior, but often condones it. The sad truth about ANI is that a lot of times it is more circling the wagon than addressing the issues... and this irate a number of people, which is why people like TONY1 are trying their "admin watch" project. When a person "retires" let them go... if they make what you consider a rude parting shot, (so long as it doesn't name names) so be it. If they are gone, who cares? A little thicker skin, and nobody would be here. LL would be gone, nobody would have associated you with the comment, and nobody would have seen it. The mudslinging that has occurred here wouldn't have... trust me, I am in no way defending LL, but I do strongly believe that his departing comment was acceptable---EVEN IF you were the only admin he had ever dealt with!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question of why Law Lord went into semi-retirement is surely best answered by looking at the history of his user page, e.g.this diff where he adjusts the text of his semi-retirement notice (note the "before" text). You can also study his contribs and consider which disputes he was involved in at the time.

Of course, the question of whether that remark was directed at me could have been solved without drama by a simple statement one way or the other from Law Lord. However, when given the opportunity to confirm or deny that, he chose to answer "I cannot see how one can possibly read your user name in the text". That isn't an attempt to clarify or resolve the issue. It's a way of (as you say) making sure that no one's opinion changes one iota - including mine.

It's rather unfortunate that all this drama occurred when I was on the road and unable to attempt to reduce it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, he has stated what just about every other person here has said, that without digging into history (which most people will not do) there is no way anybody could derive the fact that you were ever involved discussion let alone part of the catalyst for his leaving? Guess what, it doesn't matter. If he has the opinion that there are rude/abusive admins and that you fit that criteria, who cares? *I* cannot see how one can possibly read your user name in the text. Even if you feel it is personal, let him take his pot shot and be on his way, and wave to him as he walks out the door. You need thicker skin than that to be an admin, as far as personal attacks go, that is one of the most benign one I've EVER seen!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Statement by JzG[edit]

I was accused of making a personal attack where I saw none. Therefore the RfC is about whether I did in fact make a personal attack or not. Consequently, if I did not make a personal attack, my statement should be allowed to stay, because a user is allowed to voice criticism on his user page.

I guess I maybe ought to have worded my wanted outcome like this instead:

Outcome: This edit by Law Lord was not a policy violation.

But asking the permission to keep my edit is in fact the same as asking for recognition of it not being a policy violation.

If my desired outcome has been worded wrongly in the RfC, then this is because of my ignorance of wikilawyering and nothing else. --Law Lord (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, they were right to delete it, but for the wrong reason. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the statement was in complete compliance with policy; and so they were wrong to delete it, regardless of the reason. --Law Lord (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It violates the rule against SOAPBOXING. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...which is unevenly enforced based on whether those who are trying to enforce it agree or disagree with whatever statement of opinion is being made. Here, the majority of those who commented seem to be against the position taken by you and JzG, so I don't know the basis of your cockiness in asserting "We're right and you're wrong, no matter what anybody else says." And you guys are engaging in wikilawyering, coming up with ever-shifting rationales for the position you decided on originally. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to file RFC's against other users' soapboxing that offends you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense, considering the people who are crying about the statement being offensive and a personal attack are the ones crying about the RFC. Those of us taking the side of Law Lord and laughing at the hypocrisy on the other side are neither offended nor in the mind that it's appropriate to fuss over such general comments. Stay focused, Baseball Bugs. And note that such an RFC could be opened on Guy. That, my friend, is the hypocrisy. لenna vecia 19:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh! Powerful point Jen! I love it! JvG may want to swiftly excuse himself from this debate given that cogent point you just made. Cheers_Dude (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to list items on other user pages that you take to be aimed at you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what I feel. If I believe a general statement on a user page is about me, it doesn't matter. That's what I've been saying the whole time. There's no policy that says you or I or anyone else has the right to be unoffended. Thicker skin. لenna vecia 19:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to tolerate the soapboxing of others. That doesn't mean you have the right to tell others that they also have to tolerate it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you've latched on to soapboxing now. Great. Look, BB, it was a far, far stretch to consider this comment a personal attack. It's still a far stretch to consider it soapboxing. The point is that if this comment is soapboxing, so is the one on Guy's page, which no one is bitching about. So get off your high horse and start reading the pages you're preaching about. This whole situation is absurd. Everyone is citing pages without having a clue what they're about. Go read WP:SOAP and tell me how it applies to the sentence in question. In fact, read the last sentence of that section and tell me how it doesn't better apply. لenna vecia 20:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda...

Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages."

As regards other users' pages, if you find them to be in violation of policy, you are free to try to do something about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing Day is the appropriate day to do soapboxing along with whatever other forms of boxing one might want to do. However, since the user talk page in question seems to have a resolution to the dispute now, further arguing about it is unnecessary. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for whatever reason, JzG has decided to open up a debate on this topic over on the ANI Noticeboards, as shown here [21] despite the fact that it is being discussed in detail on this talkpage and belongs here. JzG and Baseball Bugs, this whole debate seems to be a losing battle for anyone who has taken your stance on the issue as clearly shown on the main article. Arguing nonstop with every single user who disagrees with you and taking it to different forums where it doesn't belong isn't going to change the fact. Cheers! Cheers_Dude (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good deal of irony to the fact that, early in the drama, Law Lord was accused of forum-shopping and wikilawyering, but now that seems to be precisely what JzG is doing to oppose him. Have some tasty sauce! *Dan T.* (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LoL! Couldn't have said it better myself. Cheers Dan T. =) Cheers_Dude (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of forum shopping... User talk:Jennavecia#LawLord Case seicer | talk | contribs 16:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't even begin to make sense, Seicer. Read the page before you link it. Then maybe go read WP:PROTECT.

Anyway, Guy, are you serious? Either remove your soapboxing from your own talk page or take your seat. Hypocrisy doesn't look good on anyone, and you're no exception. لenna vecia 18:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Jenna! No clue what Seicer was on about and I guess he thought hypocrisy might look pretty with forum-shopping! Cheers! Cheers_Dude (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]