User talk:Throwaway85: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:11, 3 October 2009

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Throwaway85, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Falcon8765 (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous contributions

It's obvious from your contribution history (and your username perhaps as well) that you have been on Wikipedia before using this account. For transparency purposes, and to avoid the possibility of WP:SOCK issues, please clarify how you contributed previously. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 20:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Wikipedia is a rather poorly kept secret. I've been using it for years. Never felt the need to sign up until I saw the PIRA talk page.-Throwaway85 (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Your username made me wonder and your first contribution in the Mediation section didn't sound like someone's first contribution. However it's only a WP:SOCK problem if you're using more than one account, or contributing anonymously and with an account. If you've now switched from anon editing to this account, that's totally fine. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 07:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never even anon editted (don't like broadcasting my IP). I'm just familiar with wikipedia and its clones. Also, I'd have to be an idiot to name my sockpuppet "throwaway". I just couldn't think of a name. -Throwaway85 (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Rd232 ^talk 08:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am digging your contributions

Nice work on the PIRA lede rewriting. Lot 49a^talk 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you too. It's nice to be getting something done, now that the animosity has died down. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troll-spray

You're approaching dangerous territory at Cromwellian Trollquest's page. I'd advise staying FAR away from his ethnicity, or anything he could use to put together a WP:OUTING complaint. Otherwise, whatever. Someone has to beat them back under the bridge, right? --King Öomie 02:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't really planned on taking it much further, just teasing him a bit. Trolls like him are so obvious that nobody really takes them seriously, and aside from some minor annoyance, can't really do much of consequence. From his previous comments, I would assume he is white, and a fairly classless sort, thus probably prone to racism. It was for that reason that I suggested he might be Pakistani, simply to rile him up. Anyways, appreciate the advice. Happy trails. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work chaps. btw I'm of mixed race (English / Jamaican) although I was born in England, and am 100% Loyal - but nice assumptions anyway. As for this bit "I would assume he is white, and a fairly classless sort, thus probably prone to racism" - you should be ashamed of yourself.

My sole intention of coming onto Wiki was to get a discussion going on deaths/injuries caused by the PIRA, which I've done with some success. The fact that i've managed to wind up a bunch of PIRA supporting scumbags, and a couple of middle class tossers like you two just makes the job a bit more enjoyable. Have fun Cromwellian Conquest (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not helpful. It's Cromwell's message, you shouldn't edit it. Rd232 ^talk 12:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even his final message was an attempt to inflame. My edit was an attempt to mitigate that. Still, I concede the point. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the old "I was TRYING to get blocked". The final defense of a defeated troll trying to get the last word in. --King Öomie 20:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, maybe this wasn't all bad. I certainly learned an important lesson. Trying to maintain NPOV at an article on a violent group (or opposing an editor trying to POV-push it ANYWHERE on wiki) makes you pro-terrorist. In fact, if I'd placed a template warning on his page, PIRA probably would have tried to recruit me!

No, but seriously, I wish we could deal so concisely with ALL the trolls. Our policies tying into AGF makes them SO WEAK. "What's that? I can vandalize three times a month and not be blocked as long as I don't trip the Final Warning?" Ugh. --King Öomie 13:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiadminning is notoriously bad, present company excluded, of course. This has to be the only site where admins really can't do much of anything. Admins on other sites would have started swinging the b&hammer ages ago, long before it got out of hand. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE and WP:AGF are excellent; unfortunately, trolls who read up on them can abuse the CRAP out of them, and it can be hard to assert WP:GAME-ing in an AGF way. --King Öomie 20:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of what I'm getting at. The admins are really hamstrung by policy, as opposed to being given the ability to make an executive decision. I can see why this is, and how the alternative probably wouldn't work, but it still makes trolling and wikilawyering much easier. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had no good faith towards that sectarian bigot as it had spewed the same bile as an IP before creating a username. BigDunc 20:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, his welcome was worn down quickly. Let's stop discussing him, though. Who knows, he may still be watching these pages. Revert, Block, Ignore. WP:DFTT. --King Öomie 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by throwaway85 (talk • contribs)

You know, I saw your edit, with the "+15" bytecounter, and my first thought was "Hmm, he must have just said 'Agreed.'". --King Öomie 20:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know you've been on Wikipedia too long when... Throwaway85 (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...you can correctly guess a comment based on its length, AND beat SineBot to the punch by adding {{unsigned}} to it. --King Öomie 21:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitivity

Hi,

I just thought I should mention that the phrase you used on the PIRA article discussion page -"to call a spade a spade" - is probably best avoided as these days it can be construed as an ethnic slur, especially when used in a discussion with a person of color. I accept you meant no ethnic or racial slur, I just think you need to be more sensitive. Irvine22 (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?? I have never heard that referred to as an ethnic slur. If anyone takes offense to it, then by all means I will apologize and redact. In the meantime, I think that the intended, and common, meaning is clear. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I take no offense and I fully accept you meant none. It's just one of those phrases that has become a bit dicey as the years pass. Have a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_call_a_spade_a_spade Irvine22 (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article you linked to mentions "spade" being considered a slur 80 years ago in America. I'm not going to sift through the English language to find local slurs for every English-speaking country on Earth from the last century. This has nothing to do with me being "insensitive", as you call it. I really just couldn't care less about local anachronisms. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will attest that in New England, at least, that phrase is still in use, and that article is the first I've heard of 'spade' being a racial epithet. --King Öomie 17:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will attest that in California, the phrase is better avoided. Irvine22 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just OVERsensitivity. If people are honestly getting offended by something that SOUNDS like a racial slur that's fallen out of use, they're LOOKING to find something wrong. --King Öomie 19:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could honestly care less about what phrases are considered politically correct in California. Thankfully, I don't live there. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people are honestly getting offended, shouldn't we honestly try not to cause them offense? Irvine22 (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT PEOPLE? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ones King Oomie mentioned, who may be honestly getting offended. Irvine22 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report

Er, unfortunate timing - just after I temporarily blocked and topic banned him [1]. Rd232 ^talk 09:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, sorry. Let's shelve the ANI report for now. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saved for posterity:

Is User:Irvine22 a disruptive editor?

There has been a long-standing issue with Irvine22, primarily on the PIRA page, but also on others. Irvine22 has been confirmed as a puppetmaster for the purposes of block evasion, refused to acknowledge or apologize for the incident, and then began to implement a series of disruptive, POV edits without discussing the matter on the talk page. His edits have been almost universally reverted, and yet he continues to make them, after being told many times by many editors as well as one admin to raise issues on the talk page first. He shows no sign of ceasing this behaviour, nor will he acknowledge, much less address, any criticism of it. The page's resident admin, User:Rd232, suggested that I raise the matter on the ANI page if it continued, so that is what I am doing now.

Following is a small sampling of Irvine22's more recent edits. Note that I have only selected edits for which there was no consensus, that were later reverted. These also all occurred after his block and subsequent sockpuppetry. They also occurred after he was repeatedly told not to edit the article without first seeking consensus, or at the very least providing an adequate source.

The edits:

[2] This edit was reverted, and a new section started on the talk page. Instead of trying to reach a consensus, he restored the edit with the explanation "per discussion". It was not.

[3]

[4] This POV edit was reverted. Irvine22 restored it. It was reverted again. So he restored it again. It was reverted again and he was told to bring the matter up on the talk page. So he restored it again. And again. And again. Actually a quick glance at the page's history will show you the behaviour he regularly partakes in. I really wish I could link to more, but I simply don't have the time. Rest assured, there are dozens.

Talk page disruption begins here

Irvine22 has also been dismissive of advice and instructions to change his editing habits, as can be seen here, and especially on the PIRA talk page, beginning here.

Note Irvine22's polite yet dismissive tone throughout all of this. He is almost pathologically incapable of acknowledging any wrongdoing on his part, or criticism of his actions. I am not sure if this is a deliberate attempt to game, or the result of some actual personality disorder for which he cannot be fully faulted.

I haven't the time to go digging through his edit history. I really wish I did. I will, however, link to this page on the PIRA talk page and invite further comments from the editors there.

Thank you for your time.

P.S. I apologize if this request is not in the correct category. It crosses several, and I didn't want to pigeonhole it as a 3rr issue, as the problem extends far beyond simple edit warring.

Since the two-stage topic ban is supposed to give Irvine a chance to become a respected member of the community, I'd appreciate it if you didn't refer to him as a "disruptive influence" unless or until further problems arise (particularly, problems suggesting bad faith, which "disruptive" may imply). In the spirit of moving forward, I'd ask you to amend your recent post. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 07:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My only objection to that goes back to calling a spade a spade. It's clear that he was a disruptive influence. Look at how many inappropriate edits he made to the article. Nevertheless, I think the opportunity should be taken now to move forward on substantive issues, rather than debate the past. Consider it changed. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I dispute that my contributions to the article constitute disruption: you certainly seem to have taken on board my point about on-going PIRA activity, and I agree with your comment on the PIRA talk page to the effect that we need to move forward to address the issue ASAP. Also, see above about the problem with the phrase "to call a spade a spade", these days. Irvine22 (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who let you edit here, you fracking spade? Throwaway85 (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 08:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 108: / Line 108: @@
 ::My only objection to that goes back to calling a spade a spade.  It's clear that he was a disruptive influence.  Look at how many inappropriate edits he made to the article.  Nevertheless, I think the opportunity should be taken now to move forward on substantive issues, rather than debate the past.  Consider it changed. [[User:Throwaway85|Throwaway85]] ([[User talk:Throwaway85#top|talk]]) 08:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 ::::Of course I dispute that my contributions to the article constitute disruption: you certainly seem to have taken on board my point about on-going PIRA activity, and I agree with your comment on the PIRA talk page to the effect that we need to move forward to address the issue ASAP. Also, see above about the problem with the phrase "to call a spade a spade", these days. [[User:Irvine22|Irvine22]] ([[User talk:Irvine22|talk]]) 17:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
+:::::Who let you edit here, you fracking spade? [[User:Throwaway85|Throwaway85]] ([[User talk:Throwaway85#top|talk]]) 18:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 :::Thanks. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 08:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)