User talk:DoxTxob

Are you talkin' to me? You can do that here!
	If you like to leave a message for me you are at the right place. doxTxob

 

Un-retirement

I have changed my mind about retiring from Wikipedia. The decision was prompted by bad judgement on my side and made prematurely. It is good for something, though; the un-retirement marks a new beginning from a "tabula rasa", leaving all the old ballast behind that became much of a useless burden lately. All this user talk accumulated on the watchlist and a lot of that stuff was "Much Ado About Nothing". For the future, I refuse to participate in any discussions concerning investigations in favor or against anyone, for any reason whatsoever. It is destructive not only for those under scrutiny but also for other parties involved, and it does not bring Wikipedia forward. It hampers the progress of the project, and I chose not to be part of that negative influence. I hope that you will respect that decision. Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 05:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you back

Congratulations on your unretirement! Don't let destructive uber_ladies get you down. They don't really control Wikipedia, they just think they do. There's no way you can change them, and I get the impression that you thought you could. Eventually they die, just like all of us. So that's positive, and as you know, there are lots of other positives if you just ignore them.--Geronimo20 (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you back, I logged on one day and noticed all of your page stuff deleted, made me sad :(. Glad you reconsidered, wikipedia needs good people. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Yeah, verily, it is good to see you back, DoxTxob.

Since you posted on it before it was "ready" to go, I think it appropriate to let you know that my RFA is finally "live". --Orlady (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I have noticed the RfA and I have left my two cents there. Well, by now it might add up to about ten cents. Controversy is important to bring Wikipedia forward but it is crucial that it is dealt with in a civil manner and fairly. There's always two sides of the story, both sides are legitimate and deserve to be heard. Otherwise, the system comes to a grinding halt because the right way somewhere in the middle could not be found. I wish you luck. doxTxob \ ^talk 01:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your posting of your email to Orlady

I reverted it and then asked for it to be oversighted for the obvious reason. This was before I saw that Orlady herself introduced a related link into the discussion; otherwise I wouldn't have done it. Still, to prevent further misunderstandings that might result in a block, I suggest not to post the email unredacted again, unless Orlady agrees with that. (Which, now seems possible to me.) Normally I would have contacted you by email, but it seems you haven't enabled it. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Direct questions concerning Orlady attack pages

There is only a finite amount of stupidity in the world, and the more bizarre conspiracy theories usually fail to get many adherents. Occam's razor doesn't leave many explanations for your behaviour on Orlady's RfA page. So I am led to ask:

1. How did you first find out that there ever was a sockpuppet case against Orlady?
2. How did you find out about the Photobucket attack page?
3. Are you the creator of the Photobucket attack page?
4. Are you the creator of the Angelfire attack page?

Thank you for your attention and any honest answers you may provide. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll butt in to answer partially for doxtxob, who could reasonably take offense at what is probably your main implication and your deliberate use of a loaded word. 1. Check User talk:Orlady and her archives of Talk to see some correspondence dating back a while. Given correspondence and any watchlisting of Orlady's page, anyone would have to know about the sockpuppet case. 2. He did a little bit of google searching on some of the names involved, i assume. 3. no 4. no. I suggest you consult privately with Orlady before making any accusations along the lines it seems you might be interested in; I am sure she would promptly and clearly deny your implication is true. doncram (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

DoxTxob is not the only person who can reasonably take offence at what has been going on recently. Re 1: I know there is at least one potential explanation that would not implicate DoxTxob. I know this because I have shown due diligence and done quite a bit of research before asking these questions. But I still want to hear his answer. Re 2: That's what I assumed as well. Before I tried it on my own and failed miserably – until I added specifically some very far-fetched words from the attack pages, which are not related to orlady but rather to the real person that the attacker claims for no discernible reason is identical with her. So I am very much interested in DoxTxob's answer.

Why are you so sure about 3 and 4? Can I take this as an admission that you know the author of the attack pages? In that case please contact Arbcom or the WMF, so that appropriate steps can be taken. Thank you. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I do take offense at your transferring your offensiveness towards me. I am/was sure because i just was sure, and as Orlady and Doxtxob both corroborate. I was not aware of any attack sites before they were mentioned by Doxtxob and Orlady. I gather one of the two you mention may be different than what has previously mentioned, but i don't care, and I have not gone to see it. Thank you Orlady for coming through with a disavowal of Hans Adler's implications. Orlady and I have our differences, but at least we have some level of trust in each others' decency not to step beyond some line. I don't know you and at this point i trust you not one bit. If you had done due diligence then I think you should not have asked the questions. No you do not have my permission to twist my words into an "admission" that suits your theory. doncram (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that DoxTxob had anything to do with creating the attack page, and I don't see any value in pursuing that line of inquiry. All of my communications with him indicate that he found that page in a web search, was initially disturbed by it, looked into the allegations, and told me about it after he had come to the conclusion that the allegations had no merit. --Orlady (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but since you are involved I don't trust your judgement in this matter. DoxTxob isn't prepared to accept anything but a checkuser result for "clearing" you of his fantastic allegations. Well, I am not prepared to accept anything but a clear "yes" or "no" and a few plausible explanations. He has no reason to complain about being treated in this way, and surely you have no reason to protect him. Surely you agree that the allegation that he is behind these unsavoury attacks is a serious one and that he should do everything he can to clear himself of it? --Hans Adler (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hans, I like your honest approach! Your attitude is not so far from mine in this respect, although it might not seem like that at the moment. You questions are straightforward and open, I appreciate that very much. Your questions are absolutely legitimate and if you have doubt about my integrity I will do anything I can to put that straight and answer any question you have. That is just in the spirit of Wikipedia, it is a community effort and if something causes suspicion, the community has a right to know about it and the community has a right that things are put straight and that discussions are made in public. You asked me honest questions, you deserve honest answers.

1 - I remember the circumstances, not the exact date. I have set my preferences to "add pages I edit to my watchlist" and I had left comments about articles and other unrelated topics on Orlady's talk page before. So I read some comment about the sockpuppet case against User:Jvolkblum that had popped up on Orlady's talkpage (which was on my watchlist) and became interested in the whole case of sockpuppets and looked through the case file. Allegedly, there were several dozens of people involved in a scheme that Orlady stated was out to hurt her. That looked like a whole lot of people involved in that case, spending a lot of time and effort, and they would all edit maliciously to hurt just one person? That caught my interest. The case file contained several different users and IPs and I checked the edits of a few users involved in that case (not the IPs) to find out what they did do wrong to get blocked, which was Special:Contributions/MagdaOakewoman and Special:Contributions/Umbarella in particular. There were accusations made against the first user that her username was too similar to Orlady's and against the second user the accusation was minor tweaking of history related material. Wow, I thought, minor tweaking of material related to history could get you in trouble on WP? I do that all the time, sometimes my tweaks are even major if I get really bold. The sockpuppet case against Orlady was mentioned in one of the comments of User:MagdaOakewoman in the case file and I found the accusation interesting without having an opinion on it.

2 - I used google.com and typed in the user names of people who were involved in the Jvolkblum case, incl. Orlady's to see if there are any connections between the accused sockpuppets. I read through the stuff on that photobucket page and was not sure what to think about it at first. It sounded sort of far fetched, but not much more than the accusation about "minor tweaking". I did some further searching just out of curiosity, found these contents unsubstanciated, and then sent an email to Orlady letting her know about that page, suggesting that she should take steps to have that deleted. That, by the way, was the reason why I published my email to Orlady after she had mentioned that one of her vigorous opponents let her know about it. I wanted to make sure who let her know and show the context.

I should have read your other comment above before answering the questions here. I did not read the above comments because I did not want to get distracted by that, but rather concentrate on the questions you had. OK, now I see that your suspicion might have been fueled by some "far fetched" words you had to type in to get the result. I understand that, it would make me suspicious, too. To clarify this point in more detail: I typed in user names from the sockpuppet casefile: "Umbarella", "Jvolkblum", "Magdaoakewoman", "Director Magda" and "Orlady" in different combinations. I am not sure which combination led to the result, the page popped up on the first or second results page at google.

3 - No. If I have something to say to Orlady I'll let her know with my name under it.

4 - No. I did not know about that site even.

I appreciated the opportunity to explain a few things here and I hope that your trust in my integrity is restored. If you have further questions, feel free to ask them. doxTxob \ ^talk 00:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I decided to first answer Hans Adler's questions and then read the comments, I did not want to be influenced by the remarks, I appreciate all your contributions. I would like to add some general comments here. I appreciate Hans Adler's attitude. Open, honest and straightforward. He has a suspicion that I understand and he formulated that into questions. Wow, that is the true spirit of Wikipedia and that is what brings the project forward, not to a grinding halt. He has every right to do that. Doncram is that straightforward, too. And I am also. If there is a suspicion that there might be "something rotten in the state of Denmark", it needs to be put in the open, discussed and solved.

Hans Adler, it may seem to you that I insist too much on a clarification of that (most likely unfounded) sockpuppet case against Orlady. You might find my "conspiracy theory" ridiculous and unfounded but so far I have only heard assurances by the candidate and others that it is unfounded and you are most likely right. But: Everyone should be encouraged to ask uncomfortable questions if in doubt. You and me and every one else on WP. Every doubt, every question should be taken seriously and be addressed with a certain respect.

I am pretty sure that the sockpuppet case against Orlady is unfounded. But you know what I really, really hate? It is the fact that the case has been renamed from "Sockpuppet investigation against Orlady" and included in the "Sockpuppet investigation against MagdaOakewoman". You see, if Orlady has nothing to hide about her past why would that step be nacessary? It might be common practice, but sometimes common practice is wrong and should be changed. Doesn't it cause more suspicion if it looks like the accused is kept out of that case for some reason? I really, really hate this move, too: Look at the transfer of Otava Rima's opposing comments in the RfA to the talkpage, they were later pushed further down on that talkpage by Orlady adding her edit statistics at the very top. Her statistics can be accessed by clicking on the links on the RfA page, no reason to blow them up at the top of the talk page. That stuff makes me suspicious and I have a right to raise these topics just lik eyou have a right to ask me honest questions.

In the process of the RfA, me and Doncram have been accused of improper behaviour, maybe sockpuppetry, although that word was not used, just because of "uncommon" formaing errors. This was the first RfA I took part in and I was not sure how to format the "#::" right, as it includes the numbering system and I do not use this much. I looked at the RfA discussion to find examples but unfortunately no one else had anything to say that would use more than one paragraph. Tons of one liners for support, though. I do not at all like my reputation treated like that. The user who made that accusation did not even respond to my request for an apology. You see, that makes me suspicious. And I do not feel respected, that could be a reason why I do not sound perfectly respectful all the time. I try my best, though.

What would WP be if secret clubs discuss their stuff in forums and in personal emails all the tome and decisions are made without community involvement? It would be nothing worth talking about, just another website! WP is not mine and it is not yours, it's not Doncram's, it's not Orlady's and it's not Jimbo's, it's ours! We all have a right to know what's going on. doxTxob \ ^talk 02:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Real life is seriously interfering with my WP activities, so I am not sure how much time I have today. In case I am interrupted, let me start by saying that I am completely happy and satisfied with your responses. I am afraid I may not deserve your comments about my honesty because, in fact, after going through your edit history shortly before your temporary retirement I decided that you are obviously acting in good faith. (Just shouting to make sure anyone reading this thread reads it.)

When I don't like what somebody else is doing, I am often tempted to mirror their behaviour to demonstrate to them why it's a problem. It's rarely a good idea, but in this case the outcome was better than expected. I believe this says a lot about you, and I congratulate you for passing this little test.

I still disagree with you about quite a few things, and I am glad that we are now discussing on a much more detailed level than would be possible in an RfA. I will go through your points, and respond to them, as fast as I can at the moment. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You say: When I don't like what somebody else is doing, I am often tempted to mirror their behaviour to demonstrate to them why it's a problem. That seems like an incredibly immature and disruptive approach to participating in wikipedia. I haven't identified if u r an administrator or not but i am inclined to complaining seriously about this if u engage in this more. The rest of us are not experimental units for your amusement. doncram (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

May I remind you of how I started this section:

There is only a finite amount of stupidity in the world, and the more bizarre conspiracy theories usually fail to get many adherents. Occam's razor doesn't leave many explanations for your behaviour on Orlady's RfA page.

That's still true. DoxTxob either still believes in his conspiracy theory, or uses it as a tool, or does not have the maturity to apologise and withdraw his attacks. Either way he has no reason to complain. You have even less reason seeing that "an incredibly immature and disruptive approach to participating in wikipedia" is a good description of your attempts to get Jvolkblum unbanned as a move in a war that you started because Orlady didn't give in to your underhanded bullying and instead assumed good faith and followed normal WP procedures.

I am not an admin. Also, I am not and have never been amused by your and DoxTxob's conduct, nor am I seeking amusement with my unconventional attempts to change it. Your threat of "complaining seriously" is ineffective because I am not afraid of your complaints. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

History of New Rochelle

I'm pleased to see that you have taken up the project of splitting the excessively long New Rochelle article by converting the history section into a stand-alone article. You have taken on a lot of work there -- I expect that the job of evaluating the sources of the history content on the New Rochelle page will be onerous. Good luck!

I looked at your test page at Talk:New Rochelle, New York/Temp, but I couldn't figure out where I was supposed to comment, since the content already occupies a talk page. Have you considered moving this to a subpage in your own User space, where it could have its own talk page?

The first comment I wanted to make has to do with the page's version of a short passage in the lead section that I have objected to elsewhere (I've labeled some of it as "puffery"). In detail, here are the concerns I have had about the sentences I have questioned:

• "The era of suburban living began in the late 1800s..." - Those words are a rhetorical flourish that I suspect (considering the contributor's copyvio history) was "borrowed" from somewhere else. Unless some other published source describes "the era of suburban living" as having started in New Rochelle, I strongly believe that this should be replaced with a more objectively worded statement (sourced, I hope) about the community's transformation to a bedroom suburb beginning in the late 1800s.
• "...when the New York & New Haven Railroad opened a line with a stop in New Rochelle." - This could be converted to a factual statement about the opening of the railroad line and establishment of the stop at New Rochelle, including a specific date instead of a broad flourish about "late 1800s". As one contributor has pointed out (sorry, I forget where), the railroad company (which has its own article) may have had a different name at the time that the service to New Rochelle was established.
• "It was during this period that the city became famous as a summer resort." - Where's the source for the assertion that New Rochelle became famous as a summer resort?
• "New Rochelle soon became one of the country's first 'bedroom communities'..." - This is another statement that needs to be sourced.
• "...with most residents traveling daily to New York City for work, and back home to the suburbs to sleep." - This wording also seems very likely to be copied from some other source.

I'm pleased to see that your version does not include the sentence "The 1960s television hit The Dick Van Dyke Show popularized New Rochelle suburban life as an American ideal." It is undeniably true that Dick Van Dyke's sitcom family on that show was identified as living in New Rochelle, and I'm sure that reliable sources can easily be found for that fact. My problem is with the statement that that the show "popularized New Rochelle suburban life as an American ideal." I think it highly unlikely that anyone could prove that statement, much less that there is a reliable source available to cite to document that it was proven. (Furthermore, I watched that TV show faithfully as a kid, and I don't remember that it represented "New Rochelle" as anything other than the name of the place where the Petrie family's studio-set house was supposedly located. I certainly don't remember idealizing New Rochelle suburban life as a result of the show.) --Orlady (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I was intrigued by the "era of suburban living". It turns out that this was first(?) added by User:FlannaryFamily in this edit with the extremely confusing edit summary "info update". The user is now blocked as a sockpuppet. For comparison, the text added by the user:

The era of suburban living began around the year 1849 when the New York and New Haven Railroad opened a line with a stop in New Rochelle. It was during this period that New Rochelle became famous as a summer resort.

And for comparison a passage from New Rochelle, Portrait of a City by Merrill and Finn:

... York and New Haven Railroad opened a line that stopped in New Rochelle. Then the era of suburban living began. It was during this period that New Rochelle became famous as a summer resort.

With Google Books' snippet view I can't read more, but I verified that "1849" also appears on the same page. This is an obvious copyright violation. I am beginning to see the dimension of the problem. This kind of thing is very hard to spot and can bring Wikipedia into serious difficulties. Just rephrasing the text is not enough once the original version has been added, since then it's a derivative of the copyrighted text. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hans, I like your approach to keep the discussion together. As there were no objections against the split, I was bold, went ahead and split the history material to History of New Rochelle, New York. Please note that as for the content: Nothing got worse, this just moved material from one place in mainspace to another place in mainspace. That should make maintenance much easier. There it has a talkpage Talk:History of New Rochelle, New York to discuss improvement and I have inserted the relavant concerns about the content made by you and Orlady there already. I'll leave her a note so she knows where the discussion of the article improvements takes place. Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 22:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This thread is closed, please do not add to it. I have moved the history related material from New Rochelle, New York to History of New Rochelle, New York. Discussion about the improvement of the history related material continues at Talk:History of New Rochelle, New York, I have inserted the relevant concerns raised above from this discussion there already, so the discussion can go right ahead. doxTxob \ ^talk 22:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Further punishment

I already lost admin privileges, and I've been roundly castigated all over the place. I've made a lot of enemies at WP:PW.

What else are you looking to see happen to me as punishment? Are you hoping to have me blocked or banned? Maybe that wouldn't even be enough for you.

I am quite sure, though, that nothing I do on this encyclopedia is remotely good enough for you. Period. And even if I stop talking about you and Doncram and Orlady, and even if I go back to working on the articles, I'm still sure I won't be doing anything good enough for you. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My WP:AN/I request is right there. You know how to find it. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also: If you want me to remove the NRHP infobox generator, let me know and I'll rip it out. Other people on WP:NRHP are using it, but since I'm being too self-promotional by doing this, it's your call as to whether I keep it around or not. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am an opposer of blocks and bans and I am not an admin and I do not want to be an admin. Guess what we have in common? I am not going to win a popularity contest either! I will look at your WP:AN/I and respond there if you don't mind. I am losing faith in the good sides of Wikipedia and my confidence in the project, too. There is too much fighting and not enough discussion, that can drain your reservoir of good spirits at some point, even if you have started with an ocean of good spirits. I saw that you requested an editor review a while ago because you lost confidence in Wikipedia. That is a good idea and I follow your example. I have requested an editor review for myself and I would be happy if you could voice your opinion there. There is only one condition: Do not try to be nice, be brutally honest! ... and sign your name there with four tildes. Thank you Elkman! doxTxob \ ^talk 06:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor review

I have requested an editor review for myself, it can be found here: Wikipedia:Editor review/DoxTxob.

If you like to leave your opinion, you are very welcome under these conditions: I do not care if you are nice, I want you to be honest! Please sign your contribution there with four tildes ("~~~~"). Thank you! doxTxob \ ^talk 06:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks

I think it was you who recently came to defend my several additions to Fort Slocum and davids island and i just wanted to say thanks for looking out for us little people.--Umbarella (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)