Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Democratic Underground , are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks.
Please refrain from making bad faith edits to the Democratic Underground page. Read the wiki article on bad faith and you will see that your motivations for making these changes are, indeed, in bad faith. You are advocating the removal of an entire section, yet you are populating the section with links to every blog that you can think of. Please conduct yourself in a mature manner. Crockspot05:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Crockpot, not in bad faith at all! I am just keeping in the spirit of the section. If it must remain, then it ought to be as complete as possible as this in an encyclopedia. BenBurch05:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this dispute will not be settled between us. I suggest we take this to an arbitration/mediation proceeding. I believe I have sufficient evidence to prove that you are not acting in good faith, and that you have issued a serious warning on my talk page as retaliation.Crockspot06:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to call for an RFC first, as that is the first step in this process and mediation is for disputes involving only two editors. This does not. And yes, I put a serious warning in there. I'm betting if I looked at your little nest over at CU, you folks have been coordinating strategy here simply against my edits, in total violation of policy. Or am I guessing wrong? You are acting in the very most partisan and disgusting bad faith yourself in attempting to WP:OWN an article about a message board you despise. And it CLEARLY is payback for the AfD of Conservative Underground. That is absolutely clear to anybody. Having said that, I am totally willing to compromise. The section stays. The DUFU link stays. But also the other EQUALLY related offshoots stay too. Or do you factually dispute any one of them? Deal with the facts here, not the personalities. I'd like to see your argument against each and every one of the links I posted. BenBurch06:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You would be wrong on the coordination issue, and on retaliation for the CU AfD. I let the CU thing go, and I have refrained from commenting about your edits on other sites after I was warned about it, even though there was no coordination, just commenting. How exactly does the Randi Rhodes site or the Mike Malloy site relate to DU, other than crossover membership? CU has crossover membership with DU, but we also have archived DU posts that have been deleted from DU, and cannot be found elsewhere. Our DU forum is the most active forum on the site. DUFU is a site that specifically lampoons DU. If crossover membership alone is a criteria, then a link to the Automobile Association of America would also be appropriate, no? I believe you are taking a serious stretch at this. Your motivations clearly seem to be to bolster your argument for removal of the offshoots section. That would meet the definition of bad faith. Add to that your threats on other sites to get your wiki admin friend to ban other editors. Please, take a step back and look objectively at what you are doing. You may be in danger of getting yourself banned. I honestly would not be happy to see that happen. I thing you have made some positive contributions to WP (as have I, to a lesser extent). Sometimes you can be quite reasonable, but other times, I wonder what is going on with you.Crockspot06:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Malloy board and the Randi Rhodes board are all basically refugees from DU much as the NU and PI boards are. DU came first and people got disgusted and stopped posting there and moved to RR and MM. They are totally appropriate. I accept that the section has to stay, if for no other reason that you intend to WP:OWN it. Given that, these links I have added are the ones I would expect to be there were the section complete. They are all boards where DU members in the DU Diaspora wound up. They all exist in relation to DU in an auxillary fashion, DU being still the 500# gorilla in the Liberal/Progressive world. And they all RECRUIT from DU given the opportunity. And topics banned at DU land on those boards to get thrashed out. A good example would be the Andy Stephenson affair which wound up largely on Malloy's board when DU would have none of it. Do I think this section ought to exist at all? Nope. But pragmatically, I cannot revert it forever given that you have organized to outnumber me. So I intend to make sure it at least lives up to what it ought to be. Unless you intend to extend your WP:OWNership to that as well. BenBurch06:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am coordinating with no one on this. I do not wish to "own" the DU article. I am simply trying to prevent the removal of the CU and DUFU links. Looking at your history, one could believe that you would like to see all conservative references wiped from WP. You were instrumental in getting the CU article deleted, and now it appears you are trying to wipe the last remaining reference to CU from WP. I believe that CU and DUFU links are appropriate, for reasons already stated. If you really feel that strongly about your justification for the links you added, let me ask you, would you have a reason to object to a link to scamdy.org?Crockspot07:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, please feel free to add it. Assuming you like promoting people who did that to a dying man, of course. BenBurch07:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to be editing pages on Vietnam War history than doing the wiki two-step with you all of the time. I may or may not add it, as the site documents the entire Andy Stephenson saga, and refutes all of the allegations that CU members "killed Andy", complete with document scans, and archived posts of his own DU friends attacking him, the same friends that have accused CU members of killing him. I'm out for a day or two, so I'll think about it. If you happen to be successful at getting me banned from WP in my absence, then allow me to pre-congratulate you.Crockspot07:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no desire to see you banned! (And that is a VERY rare thing in any event, even if I did.) As for CU and Andy, don't expect to hear the end of that even if I never say another word. Others with far more resources than I are at work on that story, and I expect that when they are done with it, CU will easily merit a Wikipedia page. In fact, I'll even create it for you at that time. BenBurch07:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now THAT was funny. I mean it, I'm laughing here. If you had objectivity on the Andy saga, you would be laughing too. I'm pretty sure, listening to Will and Beth go on, what the grounds for a lawsuit would be. Of course, Andy's own statements (not to mention Will's) would contradict those grounds. Hold your nose and go read the scamdy site, and you'll see what I mean. You may get to write that article, but when the dust settles and the facts are all known, you may wish you hadn't. BTW, isn't the threat of a lawsuit verboten on WP? (Just kidding.) Thanks for the late night chuckle. Have a safe and happy 4th.Crockspot07:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, sounds like another well-sourced TruthOut exclusive! Stop, please, my sides are aching! But seriously, I hope they don't get in over their heads. One of our members is on staff at the WSJ. A slanted story could really backfire. Crockspot07:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick reply before I hit the road. I understand now. I guess we'll be getting a big boost in membership this fall. Be sure Mikey spells my name right. It's crockspot with a small c, wiki conventions notwithstanding. Crockspot17:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, not CBS, though they expressed interest at one time. And Mike Wallace has been dead for nine months now... BenBurch17:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whine Whine Whine. You had it coming too. Deal with the material itself and not your projection of motives onto me, bub. BenBurch06:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to "project" motives onto you; you've stated them clearly. You do not believe that the Offshoots section has relevance, and yet you're adding links to it anyway. You're editing in bad faith. Is it okay to point it out, or need I fear that your friend the administrator who would "do anything you asked" will retaliate? VoiceOfReason06:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that you really understand the purpose of placing an archive on your talk page. Archives are generally made to truncate the length of an excessively large talk page (there is a warning that appears at the top of the page.) Many editors, myself included, choose to archive their page at a certain interval or number of messages. I'd be interested to talk to the admin that you are threatening us with. Alphachimptalk00:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your additions to the "offshoots" section do not fit as they are not "offshoots." As I mentioned in my reversion note, simply having "crossover" membership does not make them "offshoots." Jinxmchue17:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are (barely) related, but definitely not offshoots. See, it's like this, Ben. Star Trek: TNG, Star Trek: DS9, Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise are all offshoots of the original Star Trek series. A show like Babylon 5 is related, however it is not an offshoot.
For crying out loud, Ben... you remove the entire offshoots section on the grounds that it doesn't meet WP:EL, and then eleven hours later you edit the entry on yourself to include a link to a site which much more clearly doesn't meet the same guideline, and which you happen to have a financial interest in? I would really like to know why you believe the link to your part-owned site meets WP:EL.
Links to normally avoid
Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.
A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.
If those other links stay, then I see no reason not to include as many others of the sort as seems reasonable to me. BenBurch21:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'm just following precedent. If they pass the bar, then the other links, and the list is about 30 long now and I am still researching, DO pass the bar. On the other hand, if those links go, so do mine because, obviously, they don't pass muster. BenBurch22:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusations of vandalism against other Wiki editors is uncalled for and I suspect they are being made in bad faith. Everyone who has removed your ridiculous additions to the external links on the DU page has been accused of vandalism by you. If you have a dispute with other editors who have legitimate arguments, it is very rude to mindlessly accuse them of vandalism. If you continue to make these baseless accusations, I will be compelled to ask the admins to block your editting privileges. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism for more. Jinxmchue03:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Fine. Since you refuse to pay attention to and follow Wikipedia:Vandalism, which explicitly states that good-faith edits (prove our edits are bad-faith first) are not vandalism even if they are "misguided or ill-considered" (prove that applies to our edits as well), we'll bring admins into this. Jinxmchue04:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ben, it's Che again.
I've got to put it to you straight: your edits concerning the Democratic Underground article are, if not the cause of, then at least in the middle of some problems. Other editors on the page are accusing you of bad faith edits, bad faith warnings, and disruptions of WP:POINT. And I've got to admit, although I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not intentionally disrupting, a lot of the things you're doing seem to be a little misguided.
Simply put, if you disagree with the quality of the links in the EL section, it doesn't really make sense to add more of the same quality. That's where the accusations of bad faith and WP:POINT are coming from. And their reverts don't really count as blatant vandalism if they believe they're doing the right thing.
I really think it's time to end this fight. The other editors there seem to really believe that the edits they're making are correct. You, on the other hand, have pretty much said that you think the whole section should go. So I think it would be the right thing for you to step away from this conflict.
I'm trying to convince the others not to get admins involved. If they do get involved, they may interpret a lot of what they see as bad faith, incivility, and personal attacks. In short, you're liable to get yourself blocked. Some others may as well, but that should not be any consolation.
I would also like to discourage any further type of discussion with users Crockpot and Jinxmchue. That can't go any place good. Try to avoid them.
Of course, I can't make you do any of this, and even if I could, I wouldn't try. I just think this is the best way to end this war: for you to step up and end it by walking away. Take my advice if you like, leave it if you don't, I'm just another guy with an internet connection.
But please think about what I'm saying. - Che Nuevara:JointheRevolution23:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks a lot
Hey Ben, I'd really like to thank you for coming around and being so helpful in the ongoing chapters of the DU discussion. Recognizing your conflict of interest and going on to level-headedly and intelligently shows mature judgment and a good wiki-heart. Keep up the good work, my friend. :) - CheNuevara11:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear it, man. We should hook up some time on NU or elsewhere; I'd love to engage you in real, substantive political debate at some point. VoiceOfReason16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think your willingness to take an honest look at the DU membership numbers may have had some effect... I have an extra DU mole if you need one. Come to the Dark Side.... Crockspot16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually surprised, somewhat, by this development.
Is this a perma-ban?
And if not, have you discussed possibly being reinstated with Skinner, or one of the DU admins?
All bans are permanent, unless they are not. I did ask for reasons, and was not afforded the courtesy of a reply. And just as well. I was pretty much fed up with the place. I am hanging out at DemocraticWarrior.com now. BenBurch00:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some, yes! I will try to find some time for that. Right now I am doing a LOT of work on writing some patches to icecast and its associated tools to do scheduled stream switches based on a mysql database... BenBurch02:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not the end of the world I suppose.
I've been expelled from more websites and banned from more blogs-both liberal and conservative-than I care to recount.
I'm just giving you notice that I'm striking out the warning. It's just really becoming nothing more than a target for unreasonable people to attack me with elsewhere online. If you feel that this is unacceptable, please let me know and I will change it back. Thanks. Jinxmchue04:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making personal attacks against me or anyone else
My tolerance is pretty high, but your last attack against me on my talk page really pushed it. If you continue to make these ridiculous and (more importantly) unfounded accusations (i.e. you don't and can't back them up), I will take the necessary steps to make sure they are stopped. Jinxmchue13:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your threats and $1.97 and you can have a medium coffee at McD's.
What threats, Ben? These are facts. People who disrupt Wiki eventually are dealt with one way or another. Your abusive comments are no more wanted on Wiki than vandalism. I'm trying to be nice here and have used "please" and "thank you," but apparently that doesn't matter to you. You just heap on more and more insults. You are contributing nothing positive. Perhaps you should consider either taking yet another break from Wiki or leaving the community altogether. Jinxmchue21:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where am I threatening you, Ben? Wiki has policies and guidelines users are expected to follow. Among those is WP:Etiquette, which states a number of things, particularly:
Assume good faith
Treat others as you would have them treat you
Be polite, please!
Be civil
Forgive and forget
Recognize your own biases and keep them in check
I am having a very difficult time seeing how you are following these rules (particularly with that "You were engaged in vandalism and a blatant and Stalinistic attempt to make the page serve your ideology" tirade), and people who cannot follow them probably shouldn't be on Wiki. Saying this is not a threat any more than saying that if you rob a bank, you'll have the police after you and you will likely end up in jail is a threat. These are facts, not threats.
I have been incredibly polite and civil to you, Ben, and am trying to help you see reason, but the choice to be reasonable ultimately is yours and yours alone. Just please try to remember that words and actions have consequences. Jinxmchue16:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Polite and civil? So was the Gestapo. With similar effect. I find nothing you have done to be any more civil than neatly veiled threats meant to push a political agenda. Perhaps you might take a wiki-break yourself and come back when you can be at least somewhat honest about your motives. Personally, I intend to be here when you are simply a bad memory. BenBurch21:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep proving me right, Ben. BTW, I've been honing my editting skills the past couple months. Other than attacking me, how have you contributed to Wiki? Jinxmchue05:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Jinxmchue.
The extended Wiki break you took-which most of us appreciated-doesn't seem to have given you any more insight into how to conduct yourself civilly and collaborate usefully with other Wikipedia editors.
You certainly haven't used the time to reflect upon the concept that Wikipedia is neither a soapbox, nor your own personal outlet for leftist propaganda. Ruthfulbarbarity14:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Walter Andrew Stephenson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of either already posted material, or of material that was previously deleted under Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. If you can indicate how Walter Andrew Stephenson is different from all other articles, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template hangon (with double brackets), and also put a note on Talk:Walter Andrew Stephenson saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions.Tbeatty17:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ben, I requested a copy of the article to work on and it was posted on a page in my user space. We can work on it there. It should be no problem to get it passed after Nov 2. Please see the comments there as well Article
Considering that no opponents of Conservative Underground have edited the CU user page CU User Page even though many have known about it for months, I ask that no 'opponents' of Andy work on this project. Let us get it up to snuff first, then you can raise your objections then. Thanks. Fairness And Accuracy For All21:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing how many assholes there are who edit Wiki, isn't it, FAAFA? Who would spit on a good man's grave? We WILL have an Andy Stephenson article if I have to ask Mr. Wales for help personally. BenBurch00:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is amazing is the irony in the above user's username. For the "accuracy" point, I am not an "opponent of Andy". I am an opponent of people who would exploit his death to smear other people. And I have had a couple of people jerk around with the CU article, albeit minorly. As for the "fairness" aspect, if you guys write an accurate, fair, well-sourced, and non-libellous article, no one has any reason to mess with it. If you write another hit piece aimed at conservatives, then you are at least going to get some lively discussion on the talk page. Since the article was deleted for notability problems (like the CU article), I suggest that you do what I did, and write as good an article as you can, hold it in user space, and then wait for notability to come along. If things work out the way Ben intimiates that they will, I suspect that we will be moving both articles to the main namespace at the same time. - Crockspot 00:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC) - further comment And just to qualify, I can only speak for myself. Contrary to the opinion of some, I am not part of a wiki conspiracy or cabal, unless you count the VRWC in general. - Crockspot00:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one's smearing 'conservatives'. Andy himself spoke out, before his death, against the harrassment campaign directed against him. An organized group of people who opposed Andy still have their Website and Forum up and the documentation of their actions are still there for all the world to see. Several of the people who hounded Andy were non-conservatives, and any info about the group that harassed Andy, even on his death bed, will accurately reflect that. Fairness And Accuracy For All01:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's quite amazing, Ben, that there are "assholes" that would do an end-run around the rules in order to repost an article that was deleted and remained deleted after a review. I knew at least one of you would try something like this. And lest you think I'm being biased against the inclusion of the article, I initially voted to keep the first article as long as someone worked to improve it. That didn't happen. Instead, you and you ilk resorted to the old "we're being victimized by the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" bit instead of doing something useful. When I saw that none of you wanted to improve the article, I endorsed the deletion and I now endorse the deletion of your sneaky attempt to put it back up. That is not the way to get things done on Wiki and trying these stunts won't win you any support here. Jinxmchue22:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crockspot : You wrote " And I have had a couple of people jerk around with the CU article " I just looked at the ENTIRE history of the CU page in your user space and couldn't find a SINGLE edit which could even REMOTELY be described as "jerk around". Certainly not Derex's one edit. Which edits are those? Thanks Fairness And Accuracy For All01:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to both Derex and Brookie's identical edits, which appear to be a subtle and organized attempt at making a WP:POINT. In the comment above, if you are referring to http://www.scamdy.com , I hope you look that site over very carefully, because it contains an archive of just about every post made on the subject from multiple sites, many of which contradict the claims that were made subsequently. - Crockspot16:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe you should be interested in what WP:SPAM has to say about actions like yours. If you value your presence and input on Wiki, I suggest you read it and follow it (as well as a lot of other Wiki rules - WP:CIVIL in particular). No one wants to see you banned from Wiki, Ben, but your hostile, belligerent attitude will have repercussions if it continues. That's not a threat, Ben, as I will take no action against you, but others might. Your choices will make or break you when it comes to resolving disputes. I can tell you that telling someone to put their "head in a bucket three times and pull it out twice" will not help your case. Jinxmchue22:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ben's actions could be considered this: "If there are a small handful of editors who share your taste and/or philosophy, it is sometimes acceptable to contact them with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive."Fairness And Accuracy For All05:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could, which probably is why he hasn't been officially warned about it. I can easily see this practice becoming more and more frequent and involving more and more like-minded editors as time goes on, however. Jinxmchue22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to selectively follow Wikipedia rules, Ben.
Jinx, considering your recent remarks on deletion review, I'd say you really ought to consider not casting stones here. The hallmark of the worst abusers is their delight in posting obnoxious templates, on their own behalf, on other people's talk pages. Derex00:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Wiki War here other than the one you seem to be waging, Ben. We're following Wiki policies and guidelines. We're being civil. All you can seem to do is muster up some warnings of alleged personal attacks while freely throwing out obvious personal attacks of your own. Jinxmchue03:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Derex, we're not the ones running to online forums or spamming people's talk pages with requests to "look at" AfD nominations or deletion reviews. Jinxmchue03:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deerex, that was ONE courtesy notice to someone who would vote the opposite of me. Hardly spamming. Look at his contributions. --Tbeatty09:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I had just been coming over to revert myself, because it was a cheap shot. My apologies, it was just one, which is legit whatever the reason. Derex09:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ben, this is not an online message board or political forum.
Engaging in gratuituous personal attacks is not merely frowned upon, but prohibited altogether.
I will politely request-yet again-that you please adhere to WP: Civil guidelines, which are not voluntary suggestions, but obligatory upon all Wikipedia editors. Ruthfulbarbarity04:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ban me if you like. I'll use one of the 30 other IP addresses I own and another name. But when I see real injustice being done, as in this case, I'll say what I think needs to be said, and I'll be civil to all who merit that respect. BenBurch04:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a threat there, Ben. So you have no problem with circumventing the rules of someone else's website on which you are only a guest? I'm sure, then, that you would have no problem if I or someone else were to go to your website and do some rules circumventing of our own, right? Pick your battles, Ben. That Andy doesn't [currently] have a Wiki article is not "injustice." As to being civil here, you don't get to pick and choose to whom you are civil. If you cannot follow WP:CIVIL in regards to everyone no matter who they are or what you personally think about them, then perhaps Wikipedia is not a website you should be frequenting. Jinxmchue05:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't make any threat. (You did, however, against Wiki.) It's called "a hypothetical question." Obviously, you would have no problem circumventing the rules on Wiki (e.g. in regards to someone being banned), so it would be hypocritical for you to have a problem with someone else circumventing the rules on your website. Jinxmchue05:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ben, simply because you feel passionate about a particular issue does not give you license to flagrantly disregard Wikipedia rules.
With all due respect, that's just not how things work on Wikipedia.
Your comments on this page, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 29#Walter Andrew Stephenson merit a few {{npa}} and {{agf}} warnings, probably escalating to level 4. But I'm not going to do it, because I'm such a nice guy. (I wouldn't object if some other editor did so.) I probably did deserve an {{agf3}} rather than a {{npa3}} against you, because I was stating that your actions could not have been taken in good faith; as, after thinking it over, they could have been taken in good faith. However, if you continue commenting in the manner you have beeen doing, you might say something you'll later regret. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)00:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was denying that I was making a threat, but stating, nonetheless, that your actions may lead to consequences you would later regret. People have been banned for only violations of WP:CIVIL. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)01:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, whatever. Glib responses will get you nowhere fast. If you want to take issue with me, then take issue with me. Don't dance around with your typical vague statements that you never back up (like your little claim a few months back about some major news about CU - still waiting for that, btw). I'm tired of your games. Spit it out. Say whatever you want. I won't report it. Jinxmchue05:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, right. Like I have any reason to believe you? And the CU news is coming. Just wait. Nearly ready in fact. Though you won't like it. BenBurch05:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What reason do you have to believe me? Because I have not taken any official action against you despite having multiple reasons to do so. But fine. If you're afraid to do it here, then waltz on over to CU and make your case. As far as I know, you're not banned there yet. As for your news, I'm not holding my breath. Just expecting more of the same. Jinxmchue05:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heads Up!
I just read that the upcoming HBO documentary features a lot of footage that was originally in Votergate, ANOTHER politically motivated AfD!
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" BenBurch07:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. You see all things I do as being in relationship to you and your dispute with me??? I think there is a word for that. BenBurch16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I know for sure is that there are real geniuses in the world, and I'm not one of them. (Though at times I have found that I am just smart enough to interpret them for others...) BenBurch21:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable Use of User Warnings
Please do not make questionable use of user warnings. It would be a stretch to label Arthur Rubin's comments as a personnel attack or threat. If you have a diff that you believe indicates otherwise, I'd suggest seeking dispute resolution. Please remember that you are equally bound as he is to assume good faith (AGF). The use of questionable warnings can be viewed as harrassment so you should consider seeking neutral assistance instead of warning users with whom you are actively engaged in a content dispute. Thanks. -- JLaTondre16:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some would argue whether it was appropriate, but I'm glad that you "pinged" me to the latest deletion review about which I'd have known nothing were it not for you. I was on your side in the initial AfD, I was on your side (in fact, initiated) the first deletion review, I wasn't on your side this time. I hope you respect that. I would very much like you to weigh in on my proposed truce, and that goes for any lurkers who read this as well. VoiceOfReason02:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be cautious; it looks to me like you've reverted three times now on the External Links section and I'm starting to hand out WP:3RR blocks regarding that.
What the hell is going on at the DU article? I thought we had all worked out a consensus on the external links some time back. I generally try to stay out of you and Jinx's petty fights, but if you're going to start arguing fine-toothed policy interpretations on such things as whether an article on a blog should have another blog as an external link, you may find the shoe on the other foot in other articles. Crockspot19:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They disrespected a new user and refused to play by the rules, so I re-opened consensus. This isn't a "fight" this is a determination of the very fluid concept of consensus based upon the very conditional original consensus. I have outlined what argument I want to see before I decide that original consensus should stay, but nobody will respect that request enough to actually make the argument. And I intend to see this thing through by the Wiki process. BenBurch19:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a FYI, I was not banned, not sure where you got that from, but you may want to revise your message as its in fact incorrect. Thank you. --NuclearZer000:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a FYI: MONGO, one of the co-signers to that RfC, has admitted to working for the US Department of Homeland Security (See: User_talk:SkeenaR#Proof and the diff [2]). Isn't that cute, an abusive administrator working on behalf of the DHS and spending his time deleting pages and banning critics. Tinhatliberal11:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, you can pretend that there is an assumption of good faith in such a case, but you know it is pretense. And speaking of AGF, have you evidence that this poster is a sock?— Preceding unsigned comment added by BenBurch (talk • contribs)
I have enough experience with MONGO to know that he's fair-minded. I don't agree with him on tons of stuff, but I do think he is trying to do right. I don't buy for a second that he's on here as a DHS employee, so his biases are no bigger a deal than any other admin's. I'm perfectly willing to ABF, when evidence is strong. I do so with those below, for example. Yes, you're obviously a sock when you have two edits but are quite knowledgeable about Wikipedia admins; I'm not an idiot. Derex05:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I work for the Department of Homeland Security. I would tell you what department but then I would have to kill you. Note this is a play on a popular joke if not obvious, there is not actual life threat here. --NuclearZer004:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comments on CU
First of all, I do not post about what goes on here for the purpose of "drumming up supporters"[3] or "recruiting meatpuppets"[4]. Never have, never will. The evidence shows that I am not guilty of it. Simply commenting on what happens here is not the same as directly or even indirectly asking people to come here en masse to influence the site.
As to my comments about you, I sometimes vent when I am frustrated and/or angry. I will fully admit that, yes, I get quite frustrated and angry when it comes to you, but I try to keep it off Wiki. I won't go into specifics as it would delve deep into personal attack territory, but I will say that your attitude, behavior, and comments often incite me. I try really, really hard to take a moment to think through my how I will respond here and try to keep it as neutral and as close to Wiki guidelines as possible. I know I haven't been perfect, but I have taken friendly correction well.
In any case, we both know that neither one of us is innocent of "talking smack" on other websites. So, since we're on even ground, from now on let's both agree to avoid making comments on other websites about things that happen here. No more venting. No more accusations. Nothing. I'm sure the admins will appreciate it and it will benefit both of us in regards to our activities here. Jinxmchue05:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Truce. But perhaps you could develop interests other than the pages on Wiki about Liberal establishments? I think it is as improper for you to be editing those as it would be for me to be editing the Ronald Wilson Reagan article. BenBurch06:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ben, please. Take a look at your own edit history. I don't believe you have edited more than four or five actual mainspace articles since you joined WP. It's improper for you to judge the propriety of another editor's choice of articles to edit. Jinx's edit history seems pretty varied to me. I have removed libellous statements from tons of articles about conservative, liberal, Buddist, gay, etc. people and issues (I think I even cleaned up an article for a gay lefty rabbi somewhere in there). Yes, I do have political biases, and that is exactly why I wear them on my sleeve (my user page), so that other editors can call me on it if I am acting unobjectively. So far, the only people who have called me on it have been people who I suspect are allies of yours off-wiki, or at least have off-wiki axes to grind with me, and their accusations were merely meritless attacks to attempt to knock down my well-reasoned policy comments. While my entrance to WP was basically to come here and mess with you personally, I quickly discovered what a great project this is, and am really trying to be a positive and consistent asset to it. I don't really have a problem with you personally anymore. I think we've evolved to the point of Maggie Simpson and the other baby in a carriage, giving each other the evil eye from across the street. But I have to tell you this, and it isn't intended as a personal attack, but you're very inconsistent. Sometimes you are reasonable, and it is almost pleasant to trade barbs with you, and other times, you act like a spoiled brat. If you're on meds, maybe some sort of adjustment is needed. Or it could just be general BDS. From what I've seen the past five days, no one on "your side" is acting like someone who just won a pretty big electoral victory. One would think that teh hand of Rove picked all the dems who won. (OK, so maybe I am messing with you a little at the end here.) :) - Crockspot18:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have edited articles about other subjects, and I don't think it would be improper for you to edit Reagan's article if it was done properly. Jinxmchue06:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New Article
Hey ya Ben,
I'm still basking in the sweet afterglow of our overwhelming and well-deserved victory. Is it just me, or do many of the 'losers' seem much more combative yet more morose than usual since Weds? I won't let them bring me down though!
Hey, I started a new article on Mike Stark. Maybe you can work on it in your spare time. He's been cited ALL over the www, and the in news since his run-in with the 'Macaca' campaign staffer. Cheers, bud! - F.A.A.F.A.09:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
White Rose
Ben, a heads up, looks like somebody overwrote the White Rose article with info about a student group of the same name at the University of Texas, then they reverted it back. I made a suggestion on the talk page about a possible solution. Crockspot21:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You had said on the talk page for RSX-11 that you no longer had access to RSX-15 sources. Complete sets of source and binary DECtapes (including the XVM/DOS-based build/install programs) for XVM/RSX V1A and V1B (XVM/RSX V1B was the last version of RSX-15) can be found at Bitsavers. It will be possible to install and run them in SIMH 3.7 (the current version of SIMH is 3.6-2, and it will not run XVM/RSX because of several bugs) once it is released. There will probably also be a pre-installed disk image of it available. I already have XVM/RSX running reasonably well in a patched version of SIMH. If you want, I can send you a disk image of XVM/RSX and the necessary patches to run it. 207.153.26.20009:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I wonder if Ava's article "reads like an advertisement," too.
Well, look at that. I think it does. Perhaps I should add the "advert" tag without explaining exactly why I think that, attempting to improve the article or even making helpful suggestions. Nah. I'm not that petty. Jinxmchue19:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would only be petty if you didn't think it did. Though there are many other editors of that article who would disagree with you on that one. I think your article DOES read like an ad - I could easily see it being a press release from his agent with those exact words and minus the cites. Not a criticism of you, but a true fan wouldn't write any other sort of article. You'd have the same effect had I written the article on Annette Peacock, for example. Don't assume that any time I touch one of your articles that I am attacking YOU. --BenBurch20:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, Ben, I wouldn't "have the same effect." Whatever you see in the article isn't based upon what's in the article. That much is obvious. Jinxmchue02:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ben, why are you attacking his article? It looks factual, neutral, and well sourced to me. It's a decent first article. What exactly do you think makes it read like an advert? Can you suggest some improvements? I was planning to update the the books and videos with citation templates. Crockspot21:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does the man have any critics? From where does his comedy derive? Most comedians emulate the style of another. And I think the article has a tone of praise that isn't neutral. That's all. What any fan would write about a subject he was thrilled with. It's a good article except for those issues. I was hoping to motivate him to remedy those issues. --BenBurch22:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's very possible that he doesn't have any critics. He's a Christian comedian. How much trouble can the guy stir up? If you can find something, feel free to edit it into the article. It's a wiki, after all. Crockspot00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has critics, though none I've seen worth noting (non-notable blogs and such). In any case, your concerns are of little weight as to Wikipedia. Having or not having critics and no mention of where his style derives from (if it does at all) have no effect at all on the articles for him or anyone else. For example, in a quick perusal of the articles for your beloved John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, I see no obvious mentions of criticism or where they derived their styles from. You said, "I think the article has a tone of praise that isn't neutral. That's all. What any fan would write about a subject he was thrilled with." I could easily, VERY easily say the same for, oh, say the article for Annie Sprinkle. No doubt that if I had added the advert tag to that article, you'd have responded with frothing indignation. Of course, even articles for other people - Robin Williams, for example - could be said to have "a tone of praise that isn't neutral." You also said, "I was hoping to motivate him to remedy those issues." Quite frankly, Ben, that's a load of bull. You simply marked the article with the advert tag and left it at that. You outright refused to discuss both why and what exactly you thought needed improvement. Jinxmchue02:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
