Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Law Lord

Reply to Statement by Baseball Bugs

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

This user has been on Wikipedia for 20 years, 5 months and 1 day.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

No, he was npotnot as far as I am concerned. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

Can we close this?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

More on outcome

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Law Lord banned from Danish Wikipedia

• 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)

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. seicer | talk | contribs 13:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Comment to outside view by Smashville

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)

Moved from RFC

Users who think this summary is not-well thought out:

1. 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. لennavecia 16:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)