From: R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk Subject: [WikiEN-l] user RickK - vote rigging Hi,
Someone else spotted RickK up to no good, and referred to the following on his talk page:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml? title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FBlogsome&diff=7896162&oldid=7894 630
The diff above is all by RickK in one edit, so I can't see how he can possibly claim he thought the vote was by an anonymous person.
Having reviewed the diff, I'm completely puzzled. I don't understand what you think the problem is, and I don't understand how this is "vote rigging."
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
Well, I'm not the only one who understood, the person who left the original comment in his talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:RickK&oldid=7921955...] said "I don't know if you realised, but at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion, you cut User:Vague Rant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vague_Rant's comment in half and declared that the first half of his comment was by an anon and was therefore not counted".
Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:
From: R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk Subject: [WikiEN-l] user RickK - vote rigging Hi,
Someone else spotted RickK up to no good, and referred to the following on his talk page:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml? title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FBlogsome&diff=7896162&oldid=7894 630
The diff above is all by RickK in one edit, so I can't see how he can possibly claim he thought the vote was by an anonymous person.
Having reviewed the diff, I'm completely puzzled. I don't understand what you think the problem is, and I don't understand how this is "vote rigging."
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Please. If you're trying to make this out as something nasty on the part of Rick, you're barking up the wrong tree.
It was a funny error, which is why the section on Rick's talk page was entitled "Teehee".
I suggest you actually read the edit before suggesting that it has malicious intent and misrepresenting my post.
-- ambi
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:30:51 +0000, R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Well, I'm not the only one who understood, the person who left the original comment in his talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:RickK&oldid=7921955...] said "I don't know if you realised, but at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion, you cut User:Vague Rant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vague_Rant's comment in half and declared that the first half of his comment was by an anon and was therefore not counted".
Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:
From: R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk Subject: [WikiEN-l] user RickK - vote rigging Hi,
Someone else spotted RickK up to no good, and referred to the following on his talk page:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml? title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FBlogsome&diff=7896162&oldid=7894 630
The diff above is all by RickK in one edit, so I can't see how he can possibly claim he thought the vote was by an anonymous person.
Having reviewed the diff, I'm completely puzzled. I don't understand what you think the problem is, and I don't understand how this is "vote rigging."
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Rebecca,
I apologise for misrepresenting your post by not including the topic title. It was not my intention to misrepresent it, and if this was an honest mistake by RickK, than I apologise to RickK also. It might not be reckless editing, but I still consider it to be editing without due care and attention, of which I've spotted a lot of these from him recently. If it were driving, he'd have lost his license by now.
Ed
Rebecca wrote:
Please. If you're trying to make this out as something nasty on the part of Rick, you're barking up the wrong tree.
It was a funny error, which is why the section on Rick's talk page was entitled "Teehee".
I suggest you actually read the edit before suggesting that it has malicious intent and misrepresenting my post.
-- ambi
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:30:51 +0000, R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Well, I'm not the only one who understood, the person who left the original comment in his talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:RickK&oldid=7921955...] said "I don't know if you realised, but at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion, you cut User:Vague Rant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vague_Rant's comment in half and declared that the first half of his comment was by an anon and was therefore not counted".
Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:
From: R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk Subject: [WikiEN-l] user RickK - vote rigging Hi,
Someone else spotted RickK up to no good, and referred to the following on his talk page:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml? title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FBlogsome&diff=7896162&oldid=7894 630
The diff above is all by RickK in one edit, so I can't see how he can possibly claim he thought the vote was by an anonymous person.
Having reviewed the diff, I'm completely puzzled. I don't understand what you think the problem is, and I don't understand how this is "vote rigging."
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Go find something worthwhile to do. You are a pest. Like a gnat or a yappy little dog.
RickK
R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk wrote: Rebecca,
I apologise for misrepresenting your post by not including the topic title. It was not my intention to misrepresent it, and if this was an honest mistake by RickK, than I apologise to RickK also. It might not be reckless editing, but I still consider it to be editing without due care and attention, of which I've spotted a lot of these from him recently. If it were driving, he'd have lost his license by now.
Ed
Rebecca wrote:
Please. If you're trying to make this out as something nasty on the part of Rick, you're barking up the wrong tree.
It was a funny error, which is why the section on Rick's talk page was entitled "Teehee".
I suggest you actually read the edit before suggesting that it has malicious intent and misrepresenting my post.
-- ambi
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:30:51 +0000, R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Well, I'm not the only one who understood, the person who left the original comment in his talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:RickK&oldid=7921955...] said "I don't know if you realised, but at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion , you cut User:Vague Rant 's comment in half and declared that the first half of his comment was by an anon and was therefore not counted".
Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:
From: R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk Subject: [WikiEN-l] user RickK - vote rigging Hi,
Someone else spotted RickK up to no good, and referred to the following on his talk page:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml? title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FBlogsome&diff=7896162&oldid=7894 630
The diff above is all by RickK in one edit, so I can't see how he can possibly claim he thought the vote was by an anonymous person.
Having reviewed the diff, I'm completely puzzled. I don't understand what you think the problem is, and I don't understand how this is "vote rigging."
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
Trolls seek to fire up people on some ruse, to get them to overreact and make complete asses of themselves in public.
I don't know if Ed is a troll (and I'm not saying he is; it seems progressively unlikely to me that he is).
Lemme however assume for a sec that RIck is right and that Ed is a troll: What Rick is doing is STILL remarkably unwise, because he's getting EXACTLY where a troll would want him to be. Besides, insulting (ie. wronging) a perceived or actual bad guy doesn't improve anything or anybody.
Now assuming that Ed is not a troll: What Rick is doing is de-test-a-ble, because Rick is Assuming Bad Faith. No matter how strongly Rick may believe in his assessment of Ed: Strength of conviction is no substitute for sensible reasoning and due process.
As a Wikipedian (even as a pretty dormant one), I expressly disapprove of this.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 28 Nov 2004, at 21:41, Rick wrote:
Go find something worthwhile to do. You are a pest. Like a gnat or a yappy little dog.
RickK
R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk wrote: Rebecca,
I apologise for misrepresenting your post by not including the topic title. It was not my intention to misrepresent it, and if this was an honest mistake by RickK, than I apologise to RickK also. It might not be reckless editing, but I still consider it to be editing without due care and attention, of which I've spotted a lot of these from him recently. If it were driving, he'd have lost his license by now.
Ed
So what is your opinion of a newbie running to the mailing list and tattling for every thing I do, even when I explain to him what my reasons were and he doesn't come back with another discussion, but instead institues an RfC on me after supposedly having been around for maybe three or four days? Sounds like somebody who knows his way around Wikipedia a little too well for a newbie.
RickK
Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote: Trolls seek to fire up people on some ruse, to get them to overreact and make complete asses of themselves in public.
I don't know if Ed is a troll (and I'm not saying he is; it seems progressively unlikely to me that he is).
Lemme however assume for a sec that RIck is right and that Ed is a troll: What Rick is doing is STILL remarkably unwise, because he's getting EXACTLY where a troll would want him to be. Besides, insulting (ie. wronging) a perceived or actual bad guy doesn't improve anything or anybody.
Now assuming that Ed is not a troll: What Rick is doing is de-test-a-ble, because Rick is Assuming Bad Faith. No matter how strongly Rick may believe in his assessment of Ed: Strength of conviction is no substitute for sensible reasoning and due process.
As a Wikipedian (even as a pretty dormant one), I expressly disapprove of this.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 28 Nov 2004, at 21:41, Rick wrote:
Go find something worthwhile to do. You are a pest. Like a gnat or a yappy little dog.
RickK
R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk wrote: Rebecca,
I apologise for misrepresenting your post by not including the topic title. It was not my intention to misrepresent it, and if this was an honest mistake by RickK, than I apologise to RickK also. It might not be reckless editing, but I still consider it to be editing without due care and attention, of which I've spotted a lot of these from him recently. If it were driving, he'd have lost his license by now.
Ed
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
Rick,
As far as I am aware, I am still yet to receive any explanation from you. I'll take your last sentence as a compliment - thanks.
Ed
Rick wrote:
So what is your opinion of a newbie running to the mailing list and tattling for every thing I do, even when I explain to him what my reasons were and he doesn't come back with another discussion, but instead institues an RfC on me after supposedly having been around for maybe three or four days? Sounds like somebody who knows his way around Wikipedia a little too well for a newbie.
RickK
Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote: Trolls seek to fire up people on some ruse, to get them to overreact and make complete asses of themselves in public.
I don't know if Ed is a troll (and I'm not saying he is; it seems progressively unlikely to me that he is).
Lemme however assume for a sec that RIck is right and that Ed is a troll: What Rick is doing is STILL remarkably unwise, because he's getting EXACTLY where a troll would want him to be. Besides, insulting (ie. wronging) a perceived or actual bad guy doesn't improve anything or anybody.
Now assuming that Ed is not a troll: What Rick is doing is de-test-a-ble, because Rick is Assuming Bad Faith. No matter how strongly Rick may believe in his assessment of Ed: Strength of conviction is no substitute for sensible reasoning and due process.
As a Wikipedian (even as a pretty dormant one), I expressly disapprove of this.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 28 Nov 2004, at 21:41, Rick wrote:
Go find something worthwhile to do. You are a pest. Like a gnat or a yappy little dog.
RickK
R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk wrote: Rebecca,
I apologise for misrepresenting your post by not including the topic title. It was not my intention to misrepresent it, and if this was an honest mistake by RickK, than I apologise to RickK also. It might not be reckless editing, but I still consider it to be editing without due care and attention, of which I've spotted a lot of these from him recently. If it were driving, he'd have lost his license by now.
Ed
Let's not feed the trolls, the accusations speak for themselves, and I don't think that there is much danger of your reputation being tarnished by the diffs preseneted. Mark
--- Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
So what is your opinion of a newbie running to the mailing list and tattling for every thing I do, even when I explain to him what my reasons were and he doesn't come back with another discussion, but instead institues an RfC on me after supposedly having been around for maybe three or four days? Sounds like somebody who knows his way around Wikipedia a little too well for a newbie.
RickK
Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote: Trolls seek to fire up people on some ruse, to get them to overreact and make complete asses of themselves in public.
I don't know if Ed is a troll (and I'm not saying he is; it seems progressively unlikely to me that he is).
Lemme however assume for a sec that RIck is right and that Ed is a troll: What Rick is doing is STILL remarkably unwise, because he's getting EXACTLY where a troll would want him to be. Besides, insulting (ie. wronging) a perceived or actual bad guy doesn't improve anything or anybody.
Now assuming that Ed is not a troll: What Rick is doing is de-test-a-ble, because Rick is Assuming Bad Faith. No matter how strongly Rick may believe in his assessment of Ed: Strength of conviction is no substitute for sensible reasoning and due process.
As a Wikipedian (even as a pretty dormant one), I expressly disapprove of this.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 28 Nov 2004, at 21:41, Rick wrote:
Go find something worthwhile to do. You are a
pest. Like a gnat or a
yappy little dog.
RickK
R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
Rebecca,
I apologise for misrepresenting your post by not
including the topic
title. It was not my intention to misrepresent it,
and if this was an
honest mistake by RickK, than I apologise to RickK
also. It might not
be reckless editing, but I still consider it to be
editing without due
care and attention, of which I've spotted a lot of
these from him recently.
If it were driving, he'd have lost his license by
now.
Ed
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
Rebecca wrote:
Please. If you're trying to make this out as something nasty on the part of Rick, you're barking up the wrong tree.
It was a funny error, which is why the section on Rick's talk page was entitled "Teehee".
I suggest you actually read the edit before suggesting that it has malicious intent and misrepresenting my post.
I agree that it was extremely unlikely to have been an attempt at deliberate deception on RickK's part.
However it is a mistake that only a user like Rick - one who goes round assuming bad faith, equating anons with vandals, making threats to ban people on no authority other than his own, "editing" articles at a super-high rate by slapping metadata tags other them instead of actually fixing the wikitax etc etc - is likely to make.
Pete
Thank you. Glad I'm not the only one to have noticed this!
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
However it is a mistake that only a user like Rick - one who goes round assuming bad faith, equating anons with vandals, making threats to ban people on no authority other than his own, "editing" articles at a super-high rate by slapping metadata tags other them instead of actually fixing the wikitax etc etc - is likely to make.
Pete
And I love you, too.
RickK
Pete/Pcb21 pete_pcb21_wpmail@pcbartlett.com wrote: Rebecca wrote:
Please. If you're trying to make this out as something nasty on the part of Rick, you're barking up the wrong tree.
It was a funny error, which is why the section on Rick's talk page was entitled "Teehee".
I suggest you actually read the edit before suggesting that it has malicious intent and misrepresenting my post.
I agree that it was extremely unlikely to have been an attempt at deliberate deception on RickK's part.
However it is a mistake that only a user like Rick - one who goes round assuming bad faith, equating anons with vandals, making threats to ban people on no authority other than his own, "editing" articles at a super-high rate by slapping metadata tags other them instead of actually fixing the wikitax etc etc - is likely to make.
Pete
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!