User talk:Patrol forty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Patrol forty! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

A barnstar for you[edit]

The Original Barnstar
Even though I disagree with your arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Richmond helicopter crash, I would like to give you this barnstar in recognition of the effort you've gone to in doing your research when making your first-ever edits to WP. I suspect this will be the first of many awards you receive if you continue here! Welome to Wikipedia Wittylama 12:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to second that. Even though we disagree, I respect you for making your case so articulately. I hope to see more of you in future. Perhaps we might even find ourselves agreeing on something. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Patrol forty (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signing posts[edit]

On another note, you'll see that a couple of your messages on the HMS Richmond deletion discussion now have the words "Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrol forty (talk • contribs)" written after them. This was automatically added by a bot whose job is to go around and try to attributed comments in discussions that were left unsigned in error. Until the new talk-page software is turned on which will completely redesign the way disucssions happen (and will make overtly 'signing' discussion pages a thing of the past), what you need to do in order to add your name and a timestamp to the end of comments is to simply write 4 tildes at the end. That is, this "~~~~". When you save the page, these tildes automatically convert to a signature and datestamp. You can adjust what your signature looks like in your preferences setting. I hope that helps. Sincerely, Wittylama 12:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the info. Patrol forty (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are noobs expected to be totally clueless?[edit]

You had better be careful (jk). I've been accused of being somebody's sock account because I displayed advanced Wikipedia knowledge like how to find a policy, guideline, or article via a google-like search engine. Which makes me wonder why, if they think everything is that difficult to learn, do they leave it in an admittedly confounding mess? I.e., "we openly encourage you to edit Wikipedia as an IP – you are not required to make an account; however, if you do eventually make an account you had better hide the fact that you've edited this enormous project before, as we view all new accounts who are not clueless with suspicion". Then they wonder why this site is having recruitment and retention problems! Anyway, it's nice to meet you. I appreciated several of your comments at Jimbo's page, and I was impressed that you knew he had one, because that is a pretty well kept secret around here ... lol. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I try to WP:AGF but responses such as these "You're a fast learner, I didn't find pages like this for ages." in my view can be seen as loaded. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, the intent was clear. As it happens, I was accused of being a sock very early on here (simply because I am apparently a freak by being able to navigate a website and read and digest concepts like GNG in a matter of days rather than years, as one so-called expert tried to claim was the norm). It seems to be a common tactic in those who don't want to answer questions here. Much like that incident, I seem to have only attracted that accusation from that person simply because I replied to one of their comments with some observations of my own. Patrol forty (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody who has been here barely a few weeks and is somehow greatly versed and highly opinionated on site policy and in a place to lecture veterans such as myself on "sphere of influence", the history of Eric/Malleus and already contributing to high-end articles. People are suspicious? Hmm I wonder why...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you no lectures, and I make no apology for having an opinion. And I continue to be amazed at the sort of trivial tasks some people here seem to think take great effort and time, such as reading policy pages or following links in discussions. I have absolutely no idea why you think I know the history of Eric, I'd never even heard of him until yesterday. But if you think that makes me unqualified to comment on his behaviour, or if you think that gives you the right to come to my page with these insinuations, you're wrong. In my humble opinion, which I feel quite entitled to give since this is my talk page you've come to, you're doing more to damage this guy's long term future on Wikipedia than any of the people you seem to think are only criticizing him for a "pat on the back from Jimbo". With advocates like you fighting his corner, stroking his ego, and giving him some frankly quite ridiculous 'advice', in my opinion, he's well and truly fucked. Patrol forty (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your contributions at ArbCom. Nice work! Just a reminder that in addition to the C-word, EC also frequently calls people idiots, such as this example, where an editor made the mistake of arguing about an extraneous comma. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He. I can't imagine ever getting so worked up about a comma to feel the need to call anyone an idiot. Patrol forty (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If anything here is truly "beyond the pale" that overreaction certainly is. I mentioned it because an important aspect the enablers' defense involves referring to the overwhelming amount of duress that usually causes the outbreaks, which are apparently well deserved in many cases. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There seems to me to be plenty of evidence out there that debunks many of these claims about how awesome/misunderstood/victimised/essential Eric is. Even the guy who posted the list of Featured Article writers neglected to say whether or not any of the other people on that list were in any way as controversial as Eric is. If it turns out they're not, well, that would be another of these claims discredited - this theory that there's something about the process of creating high quality articles on Wikipedia that means you just have to conduct yourself the way Eric does. Patrol forty (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the fact that there are more than 4,600,000 articles on English Wikipedia, with 800 new ones created every day. So even if he was as good as he and his enablers think he is, his net contribution to this project is absolutely miniscule in comparison to the whole. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your evidence at Gender Gap Task Force[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is over 1600 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence, otherwise it might be removed. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, WormTT(talk) 10:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Patrol forty (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your previous account[edit]

You're either a former IP editor, an alternative account of an existing editor or a ban evader. Your first edit with this account was to an Afd and consisted of more than 8000 characters. You have less than 100 edits with this account yet seem to have an axe to grind at Jimbo Wales's talk page and by posting mostly a long winded opinion piece at an arbitration case. It would be a good idea to come clean now.--MONGO 14:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your'e wrong on all counts. My first post to that Afd was the result of considerable research into the issue. My comments at Jimbo Wales's talk page reflect the same. I've said it before, and I'll say it as many times as this accusation keeps surfacing - I haven't been here hours or days, I've been reading Wikipedia for several weeks now, and while I don't consider myself to be any more capable than the average new user, I am perfectly happy to be seen as such if that simply means I am able to read policy pages, follow links and edit pages on Wikipedia. I am not in the habit of wasting my time commenting on issues I have not researched, and I make no apologies for having an opinion on any subject. And I most certainly won't be losing any sleep over being seen as an 'axe-grinder' by those who themselves could be so easily labelled as cheer-leaders for the counter-position. Patrol forty (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In other words you are not here to write an encyclopedia. You are here to troll. That was obvious from the start. As far as me being a cheerleader then you do not seem to have done your research nor have you any inclination as to what justice is. Considering your "contributions" to article space is zero, I find your aforementioned comments ludicrous.--MONGO 16:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My article edits are not zero, and what I thought about your accusations was already clearly visible on this page before you posted. The reality is, while it's extremely easy to accuse people of trolling, but it's even easier to spot when it's actually happening. Patrol forty (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at User talk:Jimbo Wales shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--MONGO 14:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK then MONGO, even though I was already trying to resolve the dispute, I'll see if I can get consensus on User talk:Jimbo Wales on whether or not your restoration of obvious trolling is appropriate or not. Patrol forty (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering you've contributed nothing substantive to article space with this username, that you would be seeking further drama is of no surprise.--MONGO 15:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to deal with this obvious trolling quickly and quietly, but you objected. I'm doing nothing more dramatic than following the advice in the reminder you just placed on my talk page. Patrol forty (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the thread you created. The third option - the grownup option - is to leave Giano's comments there, but ignore them. Extending the drama for no benefit whatsoever is uncool no matter who is doing it, but especially uncool for a 100-edit "new" user who has, so far, done pretty much nothing on WP except exacerbate conflict. Your drama/usefulness ratio needs to improve significantly if you want people to overlook the fact that you're a returning editor violating WP:CLEANSTART. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Floquenbeam, I genuinely respect your optimism here, even if I can't share in it. Dennis 2¢ 16:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a returning editor or a "new" editor. It's not 'grown up' to pretend not to know what I think of those accusations. It's decidedly 'uncool' to reward and encourage an troll like Giano by enabling the restoration of his obvious trolling at User talk:Jimbo Wales, then accusing those who seek to establish consensus, of "trolling" themselves. The drama/usefulness ratio of that approach is obviously 1:0, in the long term especially. I'm just a new editor who is simply apparently above average in a ability (which I dispute), who dares to have an opinion on issues which, according to Mr Wales anyway, are seriously affecting Wikipedia. I will never apologise to you or anyone else for such 'crimes', nor will I ever seek your permission or approval to do so. You can attempt to demean and insult me all you want, as an administrator you're just proving his point about the state of governance on Wikipedia. It should be obvious to anyone reading this page why I might not be busting a gut to rack up a few thousand article edits just to gain your respect. Rather than conducting a futile Monday's only 'strike', the most effective protest against the current malaise here would seem to me to be to withhold all edits until such time as you feel comfortable with the environment in which you would be expected to volunteer your valuable time and knowledge, for nothing. If you think I would be remotely interested in collaborating with people like MONGO or Eric or anyone else on current evidence, or could be persuaded to do so by being insulted and demeaned or dismissed as a troll, you obviously know absolutely nothing about human nature. Patrol forty (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you're not interested in collaborating with anyone on this collaborative venture? How is that going to work? Eric Corbett 18:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in collaborating with people whose allegedly good contributions are seen as somehow more important or valid than mine are/could be. I'm not interested in contributing to any article where there might be a user already 'collaborating' there in a manner that so obviously goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. I have no interest in putting my time or effort into a collaborative site which makes several clearly false promises about the sort of treatment I could expect to receive in return for conducting myself appropriately. I have no interest in contributing to a site which has groups of users who think treating each other with a basic level of respect is a childish goal, something which is totally unrealistic due to how hard the work is, or is otherwise a privilege which has to be earned by making a set number of edits they deem to be useful. The fallacy of such a view is obvious, and it can even be seen in practical effect in the rare cases when those supposedly useful users come into conflict with each other, and all of a sudden their words and deeds don't look much different to the sort of user they regularly condemn. I'm ready, willing and able to contribute to any article where the promises and ideals at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia are being actively upheld by all users, but particularly administrators, as the people supposedly held to a higher standard. I'm not interest in working on any article if the administrators in that area possess the sort of biases and beliefs about Wikipedia and its users that are frequently on display in those who regularly hang out at your talk page offering you tea and sympathy, or regularly advocate on your behalf in ways that are so obviously out of alignment with the documented purpose and standards of Wikipedia that people like me can only conclude they're working from a decidedly different set of user documentation. Patrol forty (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line is that since you haven't contributed squat to article space with this username, spent your first editing over an Afd and then followed that up with rantings at Jimbo Wales talk and then the Gender Gap arbcom case....all that in about 100 edits. Its pretty ridiculous you would be yacking about civility considering you just told another editor this just two weeks ago.--MONGO 19:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough I was just explaining that edit to Carrite at Talk:Jimbo Wales as you were posting here. Other than that, since your posts are becoming repetitive in both content and evident intent, in the interests of saving time, I will simply refer you to my previous replies, especially the one about how easy it is to spot trolling. Patrol forty (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enough already, the problems were addressed, there is no need for mudslinging back and forth here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see mud slinging. I don't even see that much heat, just people with legitimate concerns, including one who has the tools to possibly made a determination. Politely expressing doubt isn't the same as slinging mud. As someone who has examined more than several hundred users contrib histories over the years, it does raise an eyebrow, even to Floq. No reason to jump to conclusions, but the questions are legitimate. Dennis 2¢ 20:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: Is what you're doing here really fair to Patrol (Mind if I call you that?)? I mean, if you have absolutely no proof that Patrol has had a past account, then why are you accusing him/her of said problem? Not everyone has to contribute to the articles, some people can just try to make Wikipedia a better place.Amanda Smalls 20:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't mind at all. Patrol forty (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many, many editors (if not most) would disagree with you, loudly. Even admin are expected to have significant contributions to articles. The whole reason Wikipedia exists is for the reader (ie: articles), not to be some second rate social networking website. People who only want to play politics on the back pages are not helpful. Dennis 2¢ 21:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, don't pretend like your some kind of uninterested passer-by here. I've already cited your comments at Eric's talk page as being completely divorced from what Wikipedia is all about (based on the actual user documentation, not some fallacious idea that the only thing that matters is how well/how many articles people write). While I don't doubt these are your genuinely held beliefs as to what Wikipedia should be all about, and while I don't doubt you genuinely believe that the worst Eric is guilty of is calling people an ass "every few months", don't present them as the majority view.

Like it or not, there's plenty of people here who have figured out the truth of these sorts of claims about what Eric is and what he does. And surveys show quite clearly what users expect, and it's most certainly not to be personally attacked. Which is great, because it's already a rule here. As an administrator, you're expected to intervene when people like Eric misbehave in a repeated, deliberate and remorseless manner, and you're expected to strongly object when people like Eric try to impose their entirely different interaction model on the site through sheer force of will, or by conducting their own 'hate campaign' against Mr Wales for speaking out against it.

You can dismiss the ongoing conversations on this issue as 'playing politics' as much as you like, they're not going to go away. Mr Wales is providing strong leadership on this issue, leadership that appears to be sorely needed. If you can't see who he might be talking about when he cites a failed governance, then there's a good chance he means you. If you don't know who he might be advising to find another hobby, then it might even be you (and it's certainly Eric). The only people who seem to think it's me, are those who strongly advocating for Eric. So no surprises there at all. I'm not the reason this conversation is happening, and the people who don't want it to happen are simply wasting their time talking about me. Patrol forty (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your faith in Mr Wales is very touching. Let's see what will have changed in six months, or even a year. I predict nothing at all, because Mr Wales will have moved on to other areas where he'll make equally bold statements but at the end of the day do nothing at all. Eric Corbett 00:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His concern seems real enough to me. I'd certainly be interested to know if he's ever talked about existential threats to Wikipedia in the same way as this one, and then just dropped the issue 6 months later. Patrol forty (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many times. Eric Corbett 00:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: Well, considering that Jimbo Wales only made 38 edits to the article space in 2013, I'm going to mark your statement that people should have significant contribs to the encyclopedia, as invalid.Amanda Smalls 12:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Others would say that vindicates it, but of course, you are welcome to your own interpretation. Dennis 2¢ 13:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm smelling a sock and or meat puppet farm. This Amanda Small character has had two name changes in 90 days and a fair number of edits have been little more than trolling nonsense. This Patrol Forty character has done little other than stir up drama. I'm inclined to suggest an indefinite block for at least Patrol Forty based on NOT HERE.--MONGO 13:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MONGO: Well, I cant blame you for that. But I assure you I've changed.Amanda Smalls 13:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MONGO: Bring it to ANI then, we can have a witch hunt for socks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notifications[edit]

My apologies for more or less asking the same question here as on the ArbCom case page but I would like to ensure I receive a response. Could you please explain why you haven't extended the courtesy of notifying me you are dragging me into the GGTF ArbCom case by mentioning me there? I note you have also referred to my talk page in the discussion above, so I would also appreciate an explanation of why I am being discussed here and what picture you are trying to paint of me as my reading of this is unclear? How did you happen to arrive at my talk page anyway - I'm not exactly high profile, am I? Thank you in anticipation of a response. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware I was dragging you into anything, nor was I aware that a notification is required whenever anyone mentions anyone else on Wikipedia by name. If you insist on being notified every time I mention your name, I will of course endeavour to comply with your request. I would have thought the reason why I linked to your talk page above was obvious from the words that surround it, and I'm not really sure what I can say here that would explain it any better than that. I believe I found your talk page by following one of the people involved in the GGTF case, probably Montanabw, but I can't be sure. Patrol forty (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection[edit]

I've protected this page for a few hours. If you prefer it not be protected, just ping me or any admin. Dennis - 2¢ 21:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signal to noise ratio[edit]

It is an interesting and useful measurement and methaphor, how much "noise" versus how much signal. You can tolerate a lot of noise as long as you have much more signal. Ask any audiophile. The same is true at Wikipedia. We tolerate a bit more noise from the most productive people, simply because their noise is a very tiny portion of their total signal, the total body of their contributions. Sometimes we all might go off on tangents (myself included), have our little tantrums or get dragged unwillingly into the festering, political bowels of Wikipedia, but for most people, this is something that happens from time to time: a rare thing between fits of doing actual work. You know, writing articles and the like. Right now, you are all noise and no signal, and this is a problem.

When someone comes to Wikipedia and the overwhelming bulk of their time is to treat the place like a social network, or to right great wrongs, or just to go around and criticize individuals or institutions, we often say they are not here to build an encyclopedia. As innocuous as that sounds, it is actually one of the strongest justifications for indefinitely blocking someone from editing. It doesn't even matter WHAT they are here to do; if they aren't here to build an encyclopedia, if they are all noise and no signal, they are a drain on resources and they must be blocked. It is parasitic to the community.

I say this as a favor, because I think you deserve one last warning before someone comes in and indef blocks you, and this is that warning. Of course, you are free to ignore it, but facts are facts. You have 13 article edits. Thirteen [1]. If you continue down this road, you may find yourself blocked very soon. Dennis - 2¢ 23:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When an administrator who is so biased toward User:Eric Corbett as you are comes to give 'advice' to the user who has been criticising both Eric and your own fitness to be an administrator, people tend to view that with suspicion. As well they should. If an unbiased administrator with no obvious agenda would like to give me the same advice, then I'd ask them to review my edits and ask themselves if a reasonable observer would agree that WP:NOTNOTHERE applies - all I've done is express an opinion on Wikipedia policy issues, in a non-disruptive manner. I've not been hostile, I've not been dishonest, and I've certainly not been treating Wikipedia as a social network. I'd also ask them to consider if Dennis' 'signal-to-noise' comment has any basis in Wikipedia rules, or whether it's just another in a long line of rules he's just made up, and which just happen to benefit users like Eric. What I suspect is really happening here is that Dennis is pissed off that he can't block me himself because people would see the connection between us immediately, and he's pissed off that he has probably already realised that he's one of the administrators who Mr Wales thinks is making this situation worse due to the way he interacts with editors like Eric (who he obviously values more than editors with just Thirteen article edits), and is just taking it out on me. Patrol forty (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If any admin happens by here now, I hope that they just block you. Yours is a ludicrous position and I've yet to see you support it with any evidence. In fact, I might just raise your conduct at AN or ANI if it has not been resolved by the time I wake up. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to be "an unbiased administrator with no obvious agenda", and I think that Dennis has given you some good advice. Deor (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As you see below, things have already moved on. Sitush seems to have taken Dennis' hint and filed a complaint, even though just a few hours earlier he claimed he was being honest by not accusing me of being a sock as he had no evidence to prove such an allegation. A couple of hours later, he's now accusing me of being a sock without evidence, and Dennis is right there beside him, continuing to act as if we've never had any previous interaction. If you care to up the biased/non-biased ratio, feel free to come over and comment (note my request for proof the supposed 'signal to noise' ratio rule even exists). Patrol forty (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I had actually come over to place this block a couple hours ago, but while I was typing up the block notice I saw Dennis Brown's good advice above and decided to give you time to change course if you chose to. Your response and accusations above have served to further convince me that you are in fact not here to build an encyclopedia. Though I'm sure you've already found the guide to appealing blocks in your perusals of Wikipedia policy, here's the link just in case. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Patrol forty (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The charge is that I'm not here to build an encyclopedia. My entire contributions can be classified as follows:

  • Attempting to get an article that failed EVENT deleted
  • Edits to improving that article, even though I wanted it deleted (mainly to ensure it was accurate and honest, so the deletion debate could be accurate and honest) * Appealing the decision not to delete it
  • Adding information to the Westland Lynx, History of the Special Air Service‎, South Atlantic Medal, General Service Medal (1918), General Service Medal (1962) articles
  • Discussing the issue of long term disruptive editors on Talk:Jimbo Wales and related user talk pages
  • Filing evidence in the GGTF arbitration case, which was a spinout/related factor of the debate at Talk:Jimbo Wales
  • Posting a single comment in an RFC/U on Dangerous Panda, after I saw it linked at Talk:Jimbo Wales.

Not a single one of those activities can be described as not contributing to Wikipedia in any way. Other than the unproven sock allegation, I don't meet any of the criteria in NOTHERE, and in fact I meet three of the criteria in NOTNOTHERE (niche, advocacy, unpopular). I don't think it's any coincidence that the block is deliberately vague about these issues. I suspect this is a block for sock-puppetry without the inconvenience of having to say it is, let alone prove it, even if the standard of proof if simply hunches and willfully ignoring everything the user says in their defence. This is a strange way to deal with someone agreeing with Mr Wales about the failures in governance on Wikipedia. I think it's patently obvious that the only reason I've been railroaded in this manner is that I've upset some people by supporting the founder of this very site in his criticism of their behaviours, which he believes to be a serious threat to the continuing success of Wikipedia. Banning me for that is a strange way to define someone who is not here to help Wikipedia. I have been critical of Dennis, and Dennis has practically led the charge for this block. Despite repeated requests, he refused to disclose this, and seems to have succeeded in presenting himself as a completely neutral actor here, which I find particularly offensive - that the blocking admin apparently used my lack of deference to Dennis against me is outrageous. Patrol forty (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Although I'm uninvolved, I've been following this case quite closely. First, it is evident that you are not a new user. Your extensive participation at the Gender Gap Task Force arbitration case is one strong reason that supports such a claim, among others. To put it simple: New users don't have the kind of behaviour you have showcased in the past few weeks. We are all expected to be here to build an encyclopedia, and your recent actions have shown that this is not your purpose. Given all this, I am declining this unblock request under my clerk hat to prevent further disruption to the Gender Gap Task Force case. If you genuinely want to be unblocked, you must agree to 1) refrain from your current behaviour; and 2) disclose all past accounts. → Call me Hahc21 04:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Patrol forty (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

  • Although I'm uninvolved, I've been following this case quite closely.

I find it hard to believe anyone who was actually following this case closely hadn't already made up their mind. I doubt anyone wastes their time following people they don't think are doing anything wrong.

  • First, it is evident that you are not a new user.

Evident implies evidence. However, what I suspect is about to follow is not evidence, but argument. The irony on someone who has been closely following this case should not be lost.

  • Your extensive participation at the Gender Gap Task Force arbitration case is one strong reason that supports such a claim

Is it really? How? I gave the precise reason why I learned of the case, why I got involved in it, and at last count there were more people involved in that case who weren't parties, than who were. As I have said extensively, I can read instructions, and while it's a bit over-complicated, it's not exactly hard to figure out what it's supposed to be about. There isn't a single thing about my participation in the GGTF case that cannot be explained with the truth, which is that I saw it linked from the Jimbo Wales page, saw it involved the same disruptive user, and so decided to expose some of the rank hypocrisy that was taking place both between evidence filers and by the common link, said disruptive user. I decided to expose his disgusting use of the c-word and his abhorrent claims he had never slurred women, and expose the lie that he was propagating in various places that he had not disrupted the GGTF. So I proved it to be a lie (which is the only time anyone in this entire sage has ever proved someone has lied). Only on Wikipedia does doing that that earn you suspicion.

As for extensive involvement, how is that defined? I put more evidence than most, but others have yakked about it far more than I did. You claim these are strong reasons, but they aren't even reasons. You're just telling me why you think it proves your case. And it's just so much nonsense. There never has been a GGTF arbitration case before for a start, so how could anyone's participation prove anything? If you intended to say participation in arbitration, then please provide some actual proof that you aren't just making this up as some kind of strong reason. I observed a user recently say they were active in those areas after 30 edits, yet they don't appear to have been blocked. I bet if someone actually checked, they could find an editor only a few weeks experience giving evidence (or at least attempting to) in at least 10% of cases, maybe higher. I bet you've never even considered what that figure might even be. You're just guessing. No, that would imply some level of thought went into this.

  • , among others.

Oh what a surprise. Yet again the claim is made that the evidence against me is extensive, and yet again, it turns out it's not. Notice a pattern here? You're not even pretending that proving your case by actually telling me what any of this supposed evidence is, has anything to do with this. And still no word on why it's assumed everything Dennis has said is the truth. He has more to gain from this block than me, much more.

  • To put it simple: New users don't have the kind of behaviour you have showcased in the past few weeks.

Bollocks. Show me someone who knows what a typical new user does and I'll show you a liar. And again, the lack of detail here is telling. Do new users typically not try to get articles deleted? Is that a lie, perhaps? Do new users really never post on Talk:Jimbo Wales? Or is that just another lie? There is nothing about me that isn't easily explained with the truth - I've given my version often enough, so I can only assume your refusal to critique it, or even refer to it, shows me you haven't found anything wrong with it. So, either I'm the best liar in the world, or you're not very good at profiling new users. It's frankly not my fault that you are so closed minded, so unbelievably rigid, that you think that this sort of crap is evidence at all. If I remember rightly there was a Supreme Court case which addressed just this issue - police were assuming guilt where they could in law only ascribe suspicion based on circumstantial evidence, and that's all you're doing here. You're blocking me for not being able to convince you that the truth is the truth. Which is idiotic. It's you who are telling me I'm a liar, so have the decency and honesty to at least attempt to prove it. I could spend an entire day answering any actual question you liked which you might think would prove my guilt, and you'd get nowhere closer to proving your case than this clap trap. Why? Because I would be telling the truth. And you'd be trying to use the truth to prove a lie. You'd never succeed. Which is why you're not even trying. Better to claim, against all good sense, that you all know what you're doing, you're all sure who I 'really' am and why I'm 'really' here (even though you're not and you don't, otherwise you would have said so by now).

  • We are all expected to be here to build an encyclopedia, and your recent actions have shown that this is not your purpose.

More bullshit. I was very specific about this in the first appeal - I classified every one of my actions, and asked you to justify how any one of them could be described by a reasonable person as not something someone was 'here to build an encyclopedia'. It's not surprising at all to see you ignore that. I even referred to your own rules which detail exactly how that phrase is defined, but what a surprise, that's another thing you didn't bother to even look at, despite wanting to repeat this claim as the truth. I put it to you that the only definition of 'not here to build an encyclopedia' is someone who disagrees with Eric. I've got as much proof I violated that rule, that you've offered for me violating the actual rule. It's garbage.

  • Given all this, I am declining this unblock request under my clerk hat to prevent further disruption to the Gender Gap Task Force case.

Good. I hope my entire contribution to the case is wiped from the record, then I hope the media gets a hold of the story and asks why nobody picked up obvious issues during a supposedly super complex procedure which only super-experienced users would ever involve themselves in, like the fact that an editor who freely uses the c*word regardless of who is reading wasn't given even the most cursory examination as to his suitableness to Wikipedia, despite the founder of the website making clear he should have been banned years ago. I hope they find out that, despite only 30% of Eric's posts to GGTF having anything to do with the GTTF, and despite the fact not a single one of them was constructive criticism in any way, I hope he gets a clean bill of health, and is found to be representative of just the sort of editor who is focusing hard on how to close the gender gap (when in reality, he denies it even exists, or is in any way an issue for Wikipedia at all). I hope your name is all over that decision, and you're the first person they put these questions to.

  • If you genuinely want to be unblocked,

What the fuck? What did you think the last request was? A joke?

  • you must agree to 1) refrain from your current behaviour;

Not without you giving a single reason why it's been unacceptable. I'm still waiting for proof of the signal to noise rule, which was so clearly just made up on the spot by Dennis (no doubt if I had 50% article edits, he'd have made up something else - he's not remotely interested in me for any other reason than I was criticising Eric and his obvious bias toward him)

  • and 2) disclose all past accounts.

There aren't any. This was true the last 50 times I said it. If you keep me blocked, then at least have the integrity to admit you have absolutely no idea if I've even had an account before, or whether I've had 100 accounts. The only thing you know for sure is that I've done nothing and said nothing that linked me to any past account or indeed linked me definitively (as in not just hoping you're best guess is right) to any kind of past knowledge of Wikipedia - the only person who claims I definitely have such knowledge is Dennis. Is he going to be challenged on those lies, or is he going to get a way with it? I guess you don't need more than one account here when you can use it to eliminate critics so easily. 1600 critics, every single one of them definitely a sock-puppet, even though he has absolutely no idea who in any single case. Patrol forty (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The 'signal to noise rule' is just another way of saying that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Based on your overly long, argumentative, and somewhat aggressive unblock request, I completely agree with the decision to block you. PhilKnight (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Patrol forty (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Oh this is brilliant. So now, my anger at being falsely accused and trying to be very clear about why this block is wrong is being used against me too. You want simple? OK. Which part of NOTHERE applies to me? And why does NOTNOTHERE apply? Which one of my behaviours would a reasonable person, one who hasn't already decided based on no evidence at all that I'm a sock, could be classified as not part of contributing to Wikipedia. For the fourth time of asking. Patrol forty (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As previously noted, youre unblock requests confirm the propriety of the block. I've revoked talk page access because of your repeated, abusive unblock requests, as well as other comments on this page. Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It should go without saying, but perhaps it does need to be said in this warped environment where suspicion and hunches pass for evidence and fact - if the admin who rules on this appeal is someone who is in any way friendly with Dennis or Eric, or is one of the admins who has been mentioned in the context of showing approval to the idea that long term disruptive users like Eric and make it up as you go along admins like Dennis are worth more to Wikipedia than users with little or no edits or admins who actually follow the rules and treat all users equally, then needless to say, your decision is not going to be accepted by me as fair or even honest, even if it stands. Patrol forty (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to disclose your previous account(s)? If you are a returnee via CLEANSTART you violated that anyway.--MONGO 03:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My previous account is User:MONGO. About two moths ago I suffered a blow on the head which produced a split personality. It manifests itself by creating sock-puppets on Wikipedia and arguing with them for no reason. Patrol forty (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the blocking admin apparently can't even tell the difference between the placement of a comment and the time it was made [2]. I've only been here a few weeks and even I knew that. Damn, what am I saying, this is just yet more concrete proof for the sock-puppet accusation, to go along with all the rest, such as being able to read and follow links, and having an interest in the issues of the day affecting Wikipedia. What a fool I've been, I should have been more careful to cover my tracks. Has anyone actually independently reviewed any of the 1600!!!! times Dennis has blocked people based on crap like this? Because that's what this evidence is, a steaming pile of nothing. No, that's not right. He later claimed I have "knowledge". Unspecified knowledge. And "bitterness". Let's not forget the bitterness. Which proved I am a sock. Wen combined with all the evidence. Of nothing. I'm so glad the Wikipedia governance system is so watertight that when an admin makes claims like this about people has clear motives to want out of the way*, that people actually ask him just what the fuck he is talking about. (* - do I really actually have to list all the diffs where I was specifically and directly critical of Dennis or that he has been specifically supportive of Eric before he ceases to be seen as the neutral observer here?) Patrol forty (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Actually, I can;t be bothered waiting 7 or 8 hours. You'll know the drill. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facts[edit]

  • The only thing backing this block up is hunches, nothing more, nothing less.
  • No notice has been taken of my version of the truth (otherwise known as the truth) whatsover
  • No holes in my 'story' have been identified (because it's been totally ignored)
  • No evidence of sock-puppettry has been presented (only massive assumptions)
  • No evidence that new users "do not" post at User talk:Jimbo Wales has been presented
  • No evidence that new users "do not" post to arbitration has been presented
  • No notice has been taken of the clear path any user can take between User talk:Jimbo Wales and GGTF arbitration
  • No notice has been taken of the fact that not every new user is as much of a dumb fuck or an ignorant prick as some of the examples given as supposedly 'typical'
  • No evidence has been presented that I have any knowledge of anything I couldn't possibly have if not a sock
  • No evidence has been presented that I have done anything that I couldn't possibly have if not a sock
  • No-one has given the source of the 'signal-to-noise' rule Dennis appears to have just made up as a pretext to reporting me as a sock
  • No attention has been paid to how Dennis benefits from this block
  • No attempt has been made to explain what part of NOTHERE has been violated
  • No attempt has been made to explain why NOTNOTHERE does not apply here
  • No attention has been paid to what I actually said at ANI at all
  • No attention has been paid to what I actually said in the first appeal at all (might as well also say the second, since that's obviously going to be true as well)
  • No notice has been paid that the one thing that ties all the people who worked so hard to build up the suspicion of me of being a sock before today (Blofeld, Carrite, MONGO, Writgist, Sitush, and any other one I've forgotten was doing it), that if given the choice between telling a lie that damages Mr Wales/supports Eric and telling the truth, they choose option 1 every single time
  • No notice has been paid of the fact that I have not once been caught by any of them in a lie, despite them looking for it with all the feverishness you would expect of such people, given I agree with Mr Wales. Patrol forty (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UTRS[edit]

Since you have had your talk page access revoked by Bbb23, I wanted to give you the link if you do seek unblocking in the future. I would strongly recommend taking a few days off and changing your tact before any further requests for unblock. Dennis - 2¢ 15:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm pretty sure that whatever real life person is behind this username has been indef'd before, and could probably quote UTRS chapter-and-verse. LHMask me a question 22:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Patrol_forty&oldid=1143218622"