User talk:Kirok/archive1

Star Trek Fan Productions Entry matters[edit]

First, I wanted to say that I respect you. I don't wish to sound cheesy. I have been in this fan video world too for some years. I have been inclusive and promoted fan videos in most cases. Also, I hold fan video makers to a high standard that includes respecting of copyrights of other artists and will offer my opinion on that issue. I also have seen a lot of public confusion(deliberate and non-deliberate) and deliberate hypocrisy demonstarted by fan video makers in their misinformed public comments voiced to their fans on copyright and matters about me. I try to correct misconceptions about these issues and myself. I also know there is a lot of bruised fan video maker egos on the Internet and as a response they have been very efficient in blackening my and other fan video maker's good names here and there. (I you wish to see my fan video resume I will post it on request.) +++Now to my simple question to you that has gone unanswered for days. Please answer it on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Trek%2C_fan_made_productions discussion page... How about your thoughts for the Voyages of the Angeles revisions/deletions the second time? Netwriter 17:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC) thanks.Netwriter 21:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sentiment, Tony, and whilst I am vehemently opposed to many things you have posted your position as an opposing voice is necessary to achieve a balanced position, for example on copyright. I pride myself on being balanced and impartial and not easily intimidated, so I would have no problems about doing a piece on your fan film/parody on my Blog and Fanzine.

As regards the deletions from the Fan Productions article I am giving the situation 7 days grace, to give TheRealFennShysa a chance to repond. If there is no response in 7 days I'll start doing some editting myself - making it into an inclusive article as i've suggested. What I am going to suggest in the case of The Redshirt filmette series is that it belongs to a a group of produced fan films - parodies really but I'm nit-picking - that have been made for private distribution (ussually on VHS), NOT for public distribution, because of copyright concerns and quite often no longer tracable.

I would suggest thinking about a seperate article about EITHER the filmette series OR the early history of fanfilms such as those which have been deleted from this article - It could be linked to the other articles and include early work done on the continent as well. I'm not going to do anything until Feb 10.--Kirok 10:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to politely inform you with all due respect: 'Kirok wrote: Tony, and whilst I am vehemently opposed to many things you have posted your position' First, could I have your first name to keep this polite?

Certainly, if you will give your word that you will not use it on a public forum without my permission.

Kirok- Well, I don't mean to sound too assertive about this because I respect what you and what you are doing for fan videos. WE have the same feeling. While I am sure you have valid reasons to keep your name confidential in some Internet matters, I think sharing real names with people discussing fan videos is being very helpful by seeing people as valid, equal and honorable. You have already used my real name in posts here. It's not a deal breaker with me, just a friendly symbol from you to me. Netwriter 04:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second, my copyright knowledge is supported by years of legal research with my sister(a copyright lawyer) and reading copyright court decisions history against fans who took copyright from others. I have read many fan video producer copyright statements that are doing a DIS-service to Internet readers. I could be wrong, but I haven't been shown that yet. I'm open to discussion. Some of these wrong fallacies are vague pseudo legal terms posted like 'unauthorized derivative works', 'granted by fair use clause', and the worst 'all fan videos HAVE to break copyrights to exhist'.

What you have written is a mixed bag of fact and poorly researched claims couched in aggressive, confrontationist prose - which is unfortunate because that has marred the acceptability of your valid points. You make it far too easy for your detractors to throw out your posts because of your mistakes in research and logic. You really do yourself an injustice by falling into an ad hominem attack on personalities rather than addressing the facts. The validity of your stance lies in a rigid and narrow view of a broad and complex subject - my view lies in considering the facts of copyright in a commercial environment: The lawyers serve the interests of the company they work for NOT vice versa. These opposing views are not mutually exclusive, both can be basically correct. What I am vehemently opposed to is your aggressively negative attitude towards fan productions which is nothing short of wanton destructiveness. At every turn you attempt to destabilise, undermine, cheapen and insinuate base motives for something that I see as one of the greatest opportunities for creativity open to the common man today.

Kirok- I am having problems understanding you alluding to my 'ad hominem' attacks on others. I am not saying that I haven't resorted to 'ad hominem' as a defense against others OFF TOPIC wildly attacking me personally. Please supply direct instances. I have been a victim of that myself. When I discuss these copyright enforcement matters, I always start ON TOPIC about subjects (not people) with comments supported by Internet facts/postings and court case decisions. I sincerely hope you haven't been listening to 3rd party biased Internet rumors or others jealouse view of me or work. I know we were on some common fan video BBS where the AdMs there did not like me or were prejusticed against me for many wrong/unsaid reasons. I have and will defend myself, sometimes I am not very forgiving to those who personally attack me with vicious libel. I am only human. Yes, lawyers serve their clients, but copyright cases judges serve the copyright law that protects ALL artists of all media types. That is fair to all. Maybe, you are me giving too much control over the whole fan video fandom. I didn't know I was so influential. I feel that fan videos and copyright owners can live together happily. I also very much appreciate fan video makers as creative people, especially the talented ones that don't rely on copying or re-using another creative person's intellectual properties without their permission. Don't imitate, inovate! The fan video makers hypocrisy and dirty-tricks in these artistic & legal matters that are known to me is personally bothersome.Netwriter 04:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Kirok wrote: I would have no problems about doing a piece on your fan film/parody on my Blog and Fanzine.' Thank you, I would like to do that, thanks.

Your work is shrouded in mystery and in all fairness I feel that you should be given an equal opportunity to publicise it. Email me at kirok.lieferikson@gmail.com and I'll put together a set of questions

'Kirok wrote: (Redshirt Filmette series)...that have been made for private distribution (ussually on VHS), NOT for public distribution, because of copyright concerns and quite often no longer tracable.' What makes you come to this conclusion? Please explain your thoughts for saying this about my fan video The RedShirt Filmette Series?

(a) because I could find no way of obtaining a copy of your work from the website (b) I assumed in the absense of any statement from you that the reason you were making your work hard to obtain was because of your stance on copyright stance. The tract above is taken out of context, the bit about tracability was aimed at the older films although one thing I would like to do is clarify some of the references you have made.

Netwriter 01:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Kirok 12:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirok- I am sorry, you are wrong. You have a faulty basic assumption here to frame your further coments. My RedShirt dedicated website had my email address link and instructed people to contect me there for RedShirt video matters. 'traceabilty'? 'Older films'? Please clarify. Should we should move some of these comments back to the Fan video productions TALK page so others can keep track of them?

Netwriter 04:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Filmette Series Options[edit]

Hi Kirok,

As long as an article isn't deleted because of a Copyvio or attack page, its contents can be made avaliable and userfied on request.

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 01:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 06:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem children[edit]

Hey, while I agree with you on our problem child and his attitude problem, let's try not to antagonize him, okay? He's shown his true colors, agenda, and biases many times already - don't sink to his level... TheRealFennShysa 17:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Problem child'? Nice and how mature. Thanks...I think. Your blanket assumptions, paternal insults, and many actions to elliminate my Wiki scifi contributions while your entries are left to be published unquestioned, only demonstate exactly what is wrong with this forum. Don't even try to pretend that you actually practise what you preach. As long as this behaviour is allowed to continue, I think your jibes and actions to censure my contributions becomes less relevant and only demonstates some degree of petty childishness. Netwriter 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genovese[edit]

Kirok, there's no reasoning with him. We are evil, he is righteous - at least, as far as he is concerned. He's convinced the world is against him, and nothing we can say or do is going to change that. Based on his recent activities, though, it's obvious that he's only trying to disrupt things and cause trouble now, and doesn't really care about the truth. However, if he's identifying you by name on his user page and you've expressly told him you do not want that, he's in violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and you're more than within your rights to go and remove that. If he replaces it, you'll have just cause to file a grievance against him. MikeWazowski 02:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thought, and if he gets offensive, I might do that, but although he came close he didn't quite get it right. M. le Netwriter is truly a vexation to the spirit but more of a nuisance than anything.--Kirok of L'Stok 06:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Class action against Star Trek Fan productions[edit]

I have just found out from my Watchlist that there appears to be some sort concerted action against Star Trek Fan Films. I shall investigate.--Kirok of L'Stok 09:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC) The action at this point appears to have been orchestrated by a User named WCityMike and a careful examination of his actions over the last two days brings quite frankly shocking facts ...[reply]

Over the past two days (June 5-6) this user has made 418 posts.
Of these 262 contain the words "Articles for deletion" - 62% of his workload

How many of these has he personally marked for deletion? I don't know, I'm still working on the data - I'm no great shakes at tech stuff. This made me wonder how anyone could handle such an incredible work load. Then I found this on [User:WCityMike/monobook.js] ... I would sincerely appreciate if someone could check this and tell what exactly it is. However to my untrained eye it appears to be a program that allows the user to reduce the number of keystrokes that he needs to do to use Wikipedia. This seems reasonable until you examine what he is doing with it [NOTE THE NAME]...

// AFD Helper document.write('<script type="text/javascript"' + 'src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jnothman/automod.js' + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>'); afdh_signature = '~~'+'~'; afdh_summaryprompt = false; afdh_useicons = false; afdh_shortcuts = Array(); afdh_shortcuts['d'] = 'Delete'; afdh_shortcuts['k'] = 'Keep'; afdh_shortcuts['m'] = 'Merge'; afdh_shortcuts['mv'] = 'Move'; afdh_shortcuts['rd'] = 'Redirect'; afdh_shortcuts['rw'] = 'Rewrite'; afdh_shortcuts['t'] = 'Transwiki'; afdh_shortcuts['wd'] = 'Weak delete'; afdh_shortcuts['sd'] = 'Strong delete'; afdh_shortcuts['sp'] = 'Speedy delete'; afdh_shortcuts['sk'] = 'Strong keep'; afdh_shortcuts['wk'] = 'Weak keep'; afdh_shortcuts['c'] = 'Comment'; afdh_icons = Array(); afdh_icons['d'] = afdh_icons['wd'] = afdh_icons['sd'] = afdh_icons['sp'] = 'Symbol delete vote.svg'; afdh_icons['k'] = afdh_icons['sk'] = afdh_icons['wk'] = 'Symbol keep vote.svg'; afdh_icons['m'] = 'Symbol merge vote.svg'; afdh_icons['c'] = 'Symbol comment vote.svg'; afdh_commscs = Array(); afdh_commscs['pn'] = 'Per original nomination.'; afdh_commscs['nn'] = 'Does not meet notability guidelines.'; afdh_commscs['van'] = 'Seems to be a vanity page.'; afdh_commscs['grow'] = 'Has potential, and I think it deserves a little time to grow.'; afdh_commscs['nogrow'] = 'To me has no path by which to develop into a useful Wikipedia article.'; function afd_helper() { if (auto_mod()) return; var anchors = new Array(); { var oldanchors = document.getElementById('bodyContent').getElementsByTagName('a'); for (var i=0; i < oldanchors.length; i++) anchors[i] = oldanchors[i]; } var url_re = /\?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion\/([^&]+)&action=edit&/; var url, matches; for (var i=0; i < anchors.length; i++) { if (!(matches = anchors[i].href.match(url_re)) || (matches[1].substr(0, 4) == 'Log/')) continue; var na = document.createElement('a'); na.href = "javascript:afd_vote('"+escape(anchors[i].href)+"')"; na.title = "Vote on deletion of "+unescape(matches[1]); var inlink = document.createElement('sup'); inlink.appendChild(document.createTextNode('vote')); na.appendChild(inlink); anchors[i].parentNode.insertBefore(na, anchors[i].nextSibling); } if (am_get_title().indexOf(':') == -1) am_add_li('tb', 'javascript:afd_nominate()', 'Nominate AFD', '', 'Nominate this article for deletion'); } function afd_vote(edit_link) { var shortcuts_list = ''; for (var key in afdh_shortcuts) shortcuts_list += key + ': ' + afdh_shortcuts[key] + '; '; var vote = window.prompt("Enter your vote. (Shortcuts available are: "+shortcuts_list+")"); if (!vote) return; var icon_link = ''; if (afdh_useicons && afdh_icons[vote.toLowerCase()]) icon_link = '[[Image:' + afdh_icons[vote.toLowerCase()] + '|20px]] '; if (afdh_shortcuts[vote.toLowerCase()]) vote = afdh_shortcuts[vote.toLowerCase()]; shortcuts_list = ''; for (var key in afdh_commscs) shortcuts_list += key + ': ' + afdh_commscs[key] + '; '; var comment = window.prompt("Enter your comment. (Shortcuts available are: "+shortcuts_list+")"); if (typeof comment != 'string') return; if (afdh_commscs[comment.toLowerCase()]) comment = afdh_commscs[comment.toLowerCase()]; var summary = vote; if (afdh_summaryprompt) if (!(summary = window.prompt("Enter the edit summary:", summary))) summary = vote; var url = edit_link + '&amaddafter='+escape("* '''"+icon_link+vote+".''' "+comment+" "+afdh_signature+" ~~"+"~~"+"~") + '&amsummary='+escape(summary); if (window.location.href.indexOf("/Log/") == -1) window.location.href = url; else window.open(url, "afd_helper_vote"); } function afd_nominate() { var title = am_get_title(); var log_date = window.prompt("This should be the date of the latest AFD log. Change it if necessary.", am_guess_date()); if (!log_date) return; var reason = window.prompt("Please justify your AFD nomination of "+title+":"); if (!reason) return; window.open(am_make_url(title, '{{'+'subst:afd}}', '', 'nomination for [[WP:AFD|deletion]]'), 'afdhn1'); window.open(am_make_url('Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/'+log_date, '', '{{'+'subst:afd3|pg='+title+'}}', 'Nominating [['+title+']] for deletion'), 'afdhn3'); window.location.href = am_make_url('Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'+title, '', '{{'+'subst:afd2|pg='+title+'|text=* <B>Delete</B>. '+reason+' '+afdh_signature+" ~~"+"~~"+"~"+'}}', 'nominated for deletion'); } It appears to be some sort of macro so that he can use shortcuts to create posts.

For example he has shortcuts for ' 'Delete';'Keep';'Merge';'Move';'Redirect';'Rewrite';'Transwiki';'Weak delete';'Strong delete';'Speedy delete';'Strong keep';'Weak keep';'Comment ' This is reasonable I suppose.
What does not seem reasonable is that he also has shortcuts for the reasons for his deletions! 'Per original nomination.';'Does not meet notability guidelines.';'Seems to be a vanity page.';'Has potential, and I think it deserves a little time to grow.';'To me has no path by which to develop into a useful Wikipedia article.'
Further along we find that he can create posts that contain the following ..."This should be the date of the latest AFD log. Change it if necessary." ... What would that be used for?
"Please justify your AFD nomination of "+title+":");if (!reason) return ... This is another one I'd like to know about. Sounds like he is asking others to justify their reasons - curious.
(title, '{{'+'subst:afd}}', '', 'nomination for [[WP:AFD|deletion]]'), 'afdhn1'); window.open(am_make_url('Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/'+log_date, '', '{{'+'subst:afd3|pg='+title+'}}', 'Nominating [['+title+']] for deletion'), 'afdhn3'); ... Would I be right in thinking that this is an automatic AFD maker???
am_make_url('Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'+title, '', '{{'+'subst:afd2|pg='+title+'|text=* <B>Delete</B>. '+reason+' '+afdh_signature+" ~~"+"~~"+"~"+'}}', 'nominated for deletion'); ... another one that seems to automatically make a post that has something to do with his activities in mass deletion.

I would like to know, is this usual practise in Wikipedia? Does this look like the User has given due thought and deliberation to nominating articles for deletions? If this is common practise I, as a mere member of the public, am shocked that people can so ... what's the right word? ... efficiently ... use the system in a concerted campaign of mass deletion.--Kirok of L'Stok 11:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not engage you in this discussion on most of what you've written, but I will advise you of two items. One: by their very nature, AfD nominations are post-intensive, in that they produce at the very least three edits for each nomination: one to put the notice up on the page up for deletion, the creation of an Articles for Deletion subpage for same, and an edit to the Log to transclude that subpage onto the main AfD page for that date. Second, the AFD Helper code is commonly used on Wikipedia, as is demonstrated here, and can be downloaded and installed here. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ↓ plz reply HERE (why?) ↓ 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I bother to reread your concerns above, I'll also advise you that about 90% of the things you're implying are extremely sinister are actually things which the code in question is asking the user, not things which are posted automatically. [K- So You can't use this software to post three times in the same minute?] Also, again, this code is common usage (if you click on the link above, you'll see that ~~literally hundreds~~ a large number of Wikipedians have it linked to in their monobook.js file). [K- Thank you for the candid reply, this is not common knowledge amongst casual users as far as I know] Finally, I'll respectfully ask you to please be more moderate and civil in your concerns. [K- This is of great concern to me and I would like you to point out to me any case of me being uncivil] Specifically, you are assuming bad faith on my part [K- I assumed good faith to start off with but the more I investigated the matter, the more I found questions that I felt needed answering], being incivil [K- If you feel that I have then I apologise however the questions still need addressing], and attacking me without getting your facts straight first [K- Could I respectfully ask that you point to one case where i have attacked you that I may make amends for it?] — and, by rooting around in my monobook.js file, you are also wikistalking [K- well, now there you've got me. I had absolutely no idea that a monobok.js file was private. Mind you, I had no idea what it was, nor was it marked as private, nor have I seen any posted guidelines on this, perhaps you could point them out? Your monobook whatisname will from now on be inviolate from me. However I think it is only fair of you, if you are going to throw threats of "actionable offenses" about that you tell me any other places I am not supposed to be looking]. These are all actionable offenses on Wikipedia, but I don't wish to escalate matters with you: I merely ask that you take a more calm and rational tone in your opposition. [K- I would suggest sir that your suggestion that I am not calm and rational could be construed as an ad-hominem attack to change the subject. I would suggest that it is not good form to make value judgements about the civility etc of what I have posted unless you are prepared to point to specific instances. If you can, I will of course attempt to make amends. After all we all make mistakes otherwise we would be robots. Ah! But then I would be safe under the first law wouldn't I LOL]— WCityMike ^(T | C) ↓ plz reply HERE (why?) ↓ 15:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Additional comments by--Kirok of L'Stok 15:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this person just going after Star Trek fan films? Why? Why not ALL FAN FILMS? There are a ton of Star Wars fan films - why not them? It does seem like a coordinated "attack" or some sort of grude issue, IMHO ----PirateGent 10:43 EDT, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so he's just after the Star Trek fanfilms? That seems odd to me. Nick Cook 14:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still going through the data, but yes, it does appear that at least the majority of his AfD's have directed at Star Trek articles. Make of that what you will.--Kirok of L'Stok 14:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like an explanation as to why this guy is specifically going after only Star Trek fanfilms, and seems to cry foul when others disagree with his judgement. Nick Cook 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't work out what we needed to know with Excel, so I checked the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 6 and the two days previous. For the period June 5-6 (Sydney Time), this User created 22 AfD's which were related to Star Trek, I could not see one article that he marked that was not Star Trek related. I won't tell you what they are out of respect for the rules - and please try not to threaten me too much, I really am trying to do the right thing by the hard working people who have created some of these articles AND Wikipedia - and my polite bone has very nearly worn out.

It appears that this User is a member of an elite squad of power-users whose express purpose seems to be to seek out and eliminate weak articles from Wikipedia.--Kirok of L'Stok 22:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Canvassing Warning[edit]

You have recently been observed canvassing for votes regarding Star Trek fan films on AfD [1]. Please note that this may be construed by many administrators as internal spamming, something severely frowned upon by most administrators on Wikipedia. This behavior in fact on one occasion contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking. Please do not game the system and respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by ceasing to further canvass for votes, and instead allow the process to instead reflect the opinions of editors that were actively involved in the matter at hand. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ↓ plz reply HERE (why?) ↓ 15:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K- I'm terribly sorry sir but I fail to see how this is "ballot-stuffing" I am drawing peoples attention to concerns I have about what is going on and nowhere in that tract do I ask anybody to post anything on the affected sites - STRONG Please Explain this unwarranted accusation

You're alerting individuals of a particular fan group to an ongoing vote in the hopes that they will come en masse to the respective votes and tip the balance in your favor. That's ballot-stuffing. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ↓ plz reply HERE (why?) ↓ 15:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which ongoing vote was that sir? Did I name any? Did I perhaps hint who they were? And here's me thinking that I was drawing their attention to my concerns about what I saw as some questions that needed answering [which by the way have still not been addressed]. Perhaps you could elucidate on how I could do that without mentioning That I saw as a concerted action. As the old saying goes once is an accident (I'll allow that in good faith) twice is a coincidence (I'll even allow that in good faith to show that i bear no unwarranted animosity) but three times is enemy action. When every and I emphasis that - EVERY - Star Trek fan film article is marked AfD within two days, do you not think that there is intelligent design behind it? Am I not allowed to ask why this was done? Intelligent design assumes a motive, was there any?

You documented it fully in your talk page and sent people there. And my reasoning is explained in the administrators' noticeboard complaint that FennShysa brought. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ↓ plz reply HERE (why?) ↓ 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K - I will certainly bear that in mind sir and admonish all readers NOT to make their thoughts known on the appropriate pages for fear that I will be punished

Sarcasm ill-becomes anyone, and incivility is frowned upon at Wikipedia. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ↓ plz reply HERE (why?) ↓ 15:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There! I've done it again! I've been uncivil ... well I suppose i have, after all you said it so it must be true. Would you answer my questions if I apologised? No, that would be construed as sarcasm. Will you tell me ANY way that I can get you answer my questions? I get the distinct impression that there is no way that those questions are going to be answered are they?

Well, after the lovely way in which you've approached this whole thing, how I could not be of a mind to answer any questions you wish to bring? — WCityMike ^(T | C) ↓ plz reply HERE (why?) ↓ 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a completely unreasonable reaction to me. Why do you have a such an issue with those who do not agree with your blanket assessment of fanfilms as non-notable cruft that should be deleted? First you attack Mike Wazowski, now you attack Kirok. You give the distinct impression that you do not want any discussion on this topic, and I would argue that this (as well as the fact that you seem to be solely targetting Star Trek fanfilms) throws your motivation into question. I also think this warning is unwarranted, and should be withdrawn. Nick Cook 15:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another assumption of bad faith, but I guess if enough people do it at one time, it's not going to get addressed. I don't have a personal issue with Mike, or Kirok, or you. I do really not care for the tactics of wikistalking (Kirok), personal attacks, assumptions of bad faiths, complaints to administrators, and so on that those who take the opposing point on this are employing. God forbid we simply have a rational debate on the notability of the nominated (not automatically deleted, nominated) articles. Furthermore, it's not that I seek to silence discussion, it's that ballot-stuffing is not allowed on Wikipedia. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ↓ plz reply HERE (why?) ↓ 15:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for having a hearty laugh at your expense here, but complaining about "complaints to administrators" when you yourself apparently did the same last night to someone else who disagreed with you? That's rich.... TheRealFennShysa 15:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see the differences between the two cases, I suggest you're not looking hard enough. In one case, Mike couldn't lay off the personal attacks, and I asked if an admin would simply tell him to knock it off; they said it wasn't blatant enough to merit a block. I told them I wouldn't want him to be blocked anyway, and they then labeled it a intra-editor dispute and moved it to his talk page. Asking an admin to look into things based on bad faith assumptions and implying sinister allegations without proof is quite the other. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ↓ plz reply HERE (why?) ↓ 16:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem if you are acting in good faith. It does however seem to me that you are not, based on your actions to date. So far you seem to answer most questions with accusations that people are ballot stuffing or making personal attacks on you. Kirok's actions do not appear to be ballot-stuffing to my mind. He has not been canvassing people outside Wikipedia, and raised a valid point on an existing related wikipedia page. I make no assumption of bad faith lightly, but note that no one else that has voted to delete has garnered any criticism, or any suggestions of bad faith. I sincerely hope your intent is good, but your responses to date do not convince me otherwise. If the articles are deleted by a concensus (and I'd concede that there is a case for having a single overview article instead of separate ones), I'll have no issue with that, but I strongly believe that some form of arbitration is required here. No offense intended, I know how difficult it is to ascertain intent in a text only environment. Nick Cook 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I respect your right to have a differing opinion than I do. I've already explained above why I felt Kirok's post was a call to arms to ballot-stuff — it seems an exceptionally clear-cut case to me — and canvassing is very much not limited to outside votes — in fact, the ArbCom case that references ballot-stuffing references internal spamming. As for this issue needing arbitration, I'm certainly not about to bring this to the ArbCom, and I can offer this advice from personal experience: they don't appreciate it when cases are brought to them without going through any other form of dispute resolution, and in fact, in such cases, it usually backfires on the petitioner. That was advice I learned the hard way, and I impart it to you free of charge.

As for bad faith, every single individual who's assumed that I've done this out of some sense of maliciousness or evil intent has provided no proof to me of same, even when I've asked them for it. It's always remained just an implication. Kindly prove to me that I'm doing this maliciously ... and I'll be amazed at the proof, because this wasn't done with malicious intent. I've explained why in the WP:ANI complaint that TheRealFennShysa brought up.

I'm also growing rather exhausted of attempting to engage now-multiple outraged individuals, I gotta admit, especially when not one of them is managing to master the art of respectful disagreement. (You've come closest, however.) — WCityMike ^(T | C) ↓ plz reply HERE (why?) ↓ 16:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to assume your intent is malicious, but I'd ask you to consider that on the surface it does seem so. So far you appear to be specifically targeting Star Trek fanfilms. There are plenty of other fanfilms also on Wikipedia, but you aren't making a blanket call for those to be deleted. I can understand why you would take offense at bad faith assumptions, but I'd also ask you to consider that I sat back and watched events for a while before commenting, and didn't just jump to that assumption on a whim. I'd also suggest that you are just as guilty of making bad faith assumptions. Kirok himself explained his stalking was a simple noobish mistake, yet you continue to accuse him of wikistalking. You also clearly accuse people of attacking your intent solely because they don't agree with you. Right or wrong, you too are assuming bad faith here. I continue to believe that the warning to Kirok is an overraction on your part, and one that should be reversed. However, you may be right about not requesting mediation at this time, but if the situation continues to degrade (and it looks like it will) it may become necessary. Nick Cook 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far you appear to be specifically targeting Star Trek fanfilms. There are plenty of other fanfilms also on Wikipedia, but you aren't making a blanket call for those to be deleted.

First, I'd have to be blippin' nuts to do that now. I've spent at this point hours responding to outraged Trekkers. You think that, right or wrong, I'd now engage every other bastion of fan film fans on Wikipedia? I value my mental health, thank you very much.

I can understand why you would take offense at bad faith assumptions, but I'd also ask you to consider that I sat back and watched events for a while before commenting, and didn't just jump to that assumption on a whim. I'd also suggest that you are just as guilty of making bad faith assumptions.

Again, you say to trust you didn't assume that on a whim. But support the allegation with something. If you can't, you and everyone else should stop making it.

Kirok himself explained his stalking was a simple noobish mistake, yet you continue to accuse him of wikistalking.

He's recanted the monobook.js stuff? Where, precisely, has he explained that was a mistake? I honestly don't recall coming across that. If I've overlooked it, then that's then my mistake.

You also clearly accuse people of attacking your intent solely because they don't agree with you. Right or wrong, you too are assuming bad faith here.

No, I accuse people of attacking my intent because they believe, and state, my motives are sinister. That is, by definition, attacking one's intent. If you can provide examples of cases where I've accused people of attacking my intent when they have never made a statement impugning my motives, then I will outright apologize to them.

You are putting words into my mouth. You can of course quote specific examples of where I have been "attacking [your] intent because [I] believe, and state, [your] motives are sinister.". If you can then I too will outright apologise ... and I mean a verbatim citation, not an amazing leap of logic like that made when you believed i was saying you were MilkandWookiees. (-_-)--Kirok of L'Stok 22:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to believe that the warning to Kirok is an overraction on your part, and one that should be reversed.

I don't. I respect your right to feel differently, but at the bottom of his remark, he directed people to a section on his talk page that went into extreme detail on this, and that's very obvious ballot-stuffing. You don't have to be so extremely blantant as to say "hey, everybody, go to this link, this link, this link, and this link and vote 'yes'!" to pass the ballot-stuffing test.

However, you may be right about not requesting mediation at this time, but if the situation continues to degrade (and it looks like it will) it may become necessary.

Mediation and arbitration are too entirely different things. Arbitration, which you cited first, is the Arbitration Committee, and mediation (whether it be the cabal or the committee) is a voluntary process. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ↓ plz reply HERE (why?) ↓

Re: Mediation. Mediation was my intent, the use of the term arbitration was a mistake on my part.

Re: Kirok and the wikistalking, he addressed that point above some time earlier. Regarding your intent, I will take you at your word and apologise for any misplaced assumptions. However if you are wish to see fanfilms pruned then you must target them all, or target them none. You cannot specifically target Star Trek fanfilms and exclude others. Indeed, had you done so in the first place I doubt anyone would have questioned your intent. I certainly wouldn't have.

As to Kirok's ballot-stuffing, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. Thus, I suggest someone else needs to look at it.Nick Cook 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding his points above, well, Kirok, hopefully you're reading Nick's and my exchange -- you might not want to reply to people's responses in that particular way. They're nearly impossible to pick up. I know I'm not exactly your favorite voice at the moment, but you can take it from Nick or FennShyna or someone you consider "friendly" that responses are usually done by starting a new paragraph and doing an indent with a colon — or, if you wanna get "fancy," like I did with Nick's stuff above and the italics. I entirely missed your responses to that paragraph because they were embedded into my own.

Re: "must target them all or target them none." Disagree. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, and does not demand an entirety of effort. And I really don't feel your response addresses the humorous phrased but quite seriously meant "I'd have to be blippin' nuts" element. Want to know how I came across this? Star Trek: Mirror Wars rolled across the Special:Newpages.

Re: ballot-stuffing. I really don't think there's any practical reason to bring it further. It's on the talk page -- and I'm at the three-revert limit for that talk page, so I can't take it off anymore. The fans have been notified, the stuffing has already commenced. There's no real practical purpose in taking that point any further either way, so it now just seems to be a whose-wrong-or-whose-right point, and pursuing the matter solely for that seems WP:POINT-ish. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ↓ plz reply HERE (why?) ↓ 17:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well at this point there's a fair bit of discussion, and I'd be loath to delete it. That said, I think the warning should be removed, but I don;t feel it's my place to do so. As regarding the all or none comment, I'd argue that one of the reasons you're being perceived as malicious is that you are targetting only Star Trek fanfilms. While your comment above was funny, it really doesn't address the point. I'm actually pretty convinced you are acting in good faith, altough I do think you're maybe a little too quick to take offense. And I maintain that while I do believe you're acting in good faith, such specific and unilateral actions gives the impression of bad faith, and I think that's at the root of the argument here. Simply put you've raised AfDs only for Star Trek fanfilms, but not for any others, and that's what's annoyed people, regardless of your honourable intent. On a personal note, I really don't see why there's a problem having them listed. That said, if you feel they should be deleted you certainly have the right to raise the issue. And on that note, I think we're done here. :)Nick Cook 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would make sense you feel the warning should be removed, but it's an issue we remain fundamentally split on, and although I don't see us reconciling our views on the point, I also now see it as an entirely academic and moot issue. As for the perceptions involved, it's unfortunate that people have chosen to ascribe malice where there is none. In any case, I thank you — a very great deal — for being willing to rationally discuss this matter here; although we didn't come to an agreement, if Wikipedia was full of this kind of back-and-forth, it would be a much, much better place. — WCityMike 18:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fun. Thanks for a pleasant discussion. Would that all of my online encounters could be so civil. :) Nick Cook 18:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now then. I believe there are still some unanswered questions ...

How many of these has he personally marked for deletion? is this usual practise in Wikipedia? Does this look like the User has given due thought and deliberation to nominating articles for deletions? Which ongoing vote was that sir? - You outright refused to discuss it "I will not engage you in this discussion on most of what you've written"

Did I name any? Did I perhaps hint who they were? - For this all got was "You documented it fully in your talk page and sent people there." My Talk page is not a voting page and I did not through-link anyone from there. So you still haven't answered tthese questions.

When every and I emphasis that - EVERY - Star Trek fan film article is marked AfD within two days, do you not think that there is intelligent design behind it? Am I not allowed to ask why this was done? Intelligent design assumes a motive, was there any? - For these all I got was : "my reasoning is explained in the administrators' noticeboard complaint that FennShysa brought." however there was no link so effectively this was not answered

Would you answer my questions if I apologised? Will you tell me ANY way that I can get you answer my questions? I get the distinct impression that there is no way that those questions are going to be answered are they? - I was serious but all I got was "Well, after the lovely way in which you've approached this whole thing, how I could not be of a mind to answer any questions you wish to bring?" I took this to be a rhetorical question, was I wrong?

I have a much clearer picture now of who and what you are and your purpose on Wikipedia. If you had deigned to explain these things by answering my questions instead of being evasive and aggressive (and I can back that up with multiple verbatim quotations from you) then all of this unpleasantness could have been avoided.

You'll have to excuse me if i don't get back to you on every point you make this week, but I am trying to put together a presentation for a major Australian convention starting in two days time and this is not helping at all. I will take this matter further though when I get the chance.TTFN--Kirok of L'Stok 22:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now then. I believe there are still some unanswered questions ...

Okay.

How many of these has he personally marked for deletion?

I do not have a count as how many articles, throughout the course of my time at Wikipedia, I have nominated for deletion. However, I have nominated 47 articles for deletion in the last two days. 23 of them are related to Star Trek, 4 are related to Lost, and 20 are related to neither. They are: Mailbox replacement door, Vito Raliffe, Star Trek Mirror Wars, Space mutants, Scientology Timeline, Booty snatching, List of Star Trek Mirror Wars Episodes, Streetsus, Gnome (power), Journalisticity, Martinolagucci, Final option, Homing device, Star Trek: Hidden Frontier, Star Trek: New Voyages, Star Wreck, Starship Exeter, Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation, Tales of the Seventh Fleet (second nomination), Voyages of the USS Angeles, Star Wreck Asskicker, Stone Trek, Tales of the Seventh Fleet (second nomination), Diane Marchant, Samuli Torssonen, Star Wreck 4%C2%BD: Weak Performance, Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning, James Cawley, P-Fleet, Beach Bash, Maquis Forces International, UCIP, Warp 11, Bravo Fleet (second nomination), Obsidian Fleet, I'll Never Forget what You Did Last Summer, List of Foxtrot stories, Lost: The Journey, DHARMA Initiative stations, Oceanic Airlines, Drive Shaft, Dan Deacon, Celebrity Couples, Hugo Robles, Blog-O-Sphere, Project X (team), and Films considered the worst ever (fifth nomination).

I counted 22 over 2 days which was raised my suspicions since I had heard nothing of any group of Power-Users who were eliminating weak articles

I later amended the text above (not realizing you had responded already): 23 Trek, 4 Lost, 20 miscellaneous. — Mike 02:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is this usual practise in Wikipedia?

I have no statistics that advise of the frequency of nominations, and not having frequented Articles for Deletion much prior to this, I don't have an empirical sense of the common frequency of individuals' nominations. However, I have seen people a number of articles relating to the same subject at the same time, so I don't believe it's an uncommon practice.

But MilkandWookiees action was wrong in that he marked too many for deletion - how do Admin adjicate what is too many?

I don't know as administrators do adjudicate as to "too many" AfDs. It may also be the fact that his account seems to have been formed moments before his voting spree; that lends an air of suspicion to him. — Mike 02:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this look like the User has given due thought and deliberation to nominating articles for deletions?

You're asking how my actions appear to other people. Therefore, that's not a question I can answer.

This is true, it was pretty rhetorical on my part.

Which ongoing vote was that sir?

You posted to Talk:Star Trek (Fan made productions) this post [2], which at its conclusion directed people to the "Class action against Star Trek fan nominations" section of your talk page [3], which advised people in its very opening sentence, "I have just found out from my Watchlist that there appears to be some sort concerted action against Star Trek Fan Films" and that the action concerned "Articles for deletion".

Thus, you were advising people that you believed there was a concerted action occurring against Star Trek fan films at the "articles for deletion" venue.

Since I did not at that time know what the "Articles of Deletion" venue was (I only worked it out last night) How would i do that? Did I give a link or were they supposed to be Power-Users such as yourself? We poor Plebs know nothing of the massive maze that Wikipedia represents (to me at least)

Since I did not at that time know what the "Articles of Deletion" venue was (I only worked it out last night)

I did not know this.

Did I give a link or were they supposed to be Power-Users such as yourself?

A large portion of Wikipedia users do know what Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is, so it was not an unreasonable assumption to make. — Mike 02:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I name any?

Yes, per above.

No I didn't. Other than users who read the Discussion page of ST: Fan Prods and then read my article and then knew the names of the fan films would be able to do this. A person would have to have to be pretty determined to go through that.

Well, I think we'll have to respectfully disagree on that point. Heck, even Googling "articles for deletion" "Wikipedia" would have taken them to the right venue.

[Slaps forehead!] Now i know what you're talking about, and the stupid thing is that it is one of the standard things I point out to beginners on the computer at work. There is nearly always more than one way of doing something on a computer - there is more than one way of getting to the AfD pages isn't there?! I have always gone to the normal article to follow the link from there. I realise now that if you know that the AfD page exists, you coud run through all the pages one after the other! So that's why you keep insisting that I was telling them where to go!--Kirok of L'Stok 04:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I perhaps hint who they were?

Yes, per above.

What I wrote could be construed as a hint but the Users concerned would have to know the fan films involved to be able to trace them from that link. I think it is pretty safe to say that anyone who reads the ST: Fan Preds Discussion page and is interested enough to follow up onto my page AND knew the names of the fan films would have them on their watchlist anyway, so I was wasting my time.

For this all got was "You documented it fully in your talk page and sent people there."

Yes, because you documented it fully in your talk page and sent people to the venue where the vote was taking place.

No I didn't document it - to document means to give specific concise and complete information in writing. Where are the names? Where are the links? If I documented my paperwork at work so incompletely I would be out of a job quick smart.

I think another point at which we'll have to agree to disagree, although I will concede that "document" is perhaps too strong a verb. — Mike 02:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk page is not a voting page and I did not through-link anyone from there.

Irrelevant. You alerted interested parties to the ongoing vote and by doing so created a ballot-stuffing situation. You advised them of precisely where the votes were taking place, even if you didn't provide a direct link to same.

No I didn't. Quote verbatim where I told them "precisely where the votes were taking place" Don't put words into my mouth.

"Articles for deletion." — Mike 02:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When every and I emphasis that - EVERY - Star Trek fan film article is marked AfD within two days, do you not think that there is intelligent design behind it?

You do not define the phrase "intelligent design," and I assume you are not referring to the evolutionary concept. I assume you mean something similar to "ulterior motives."

You assumed wrong. Intelligent design means that what happened was not by accident, it was planned (designed) to happen by conscious effort (Intelligence). ulterior motives conotates that your design has a reason beyond the apparent one - I fail to see to how that could be construed from ny words.

Well, frankly, I hadn't heard the term "intelligent design" in this context before, so I had no idea how to construe that phrase. Best guess. — Mike 02:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This question essentially is asking me if I think there is an ulterior motive behind my own actions. I think it would be better directed towards someone else, as, again, you're asking how my actions appear to another individual. Nevertheless, read on, as I answer your question below.

No it's not

Am I not allowed to ask why this was done?

Yes, you are allowed to ask why this was done.

Intelligent design assumes a motive, was there any?

Inasmuch as motive is defined as the reason behind an action, with no negative or positive connotation to it, yes, I had a reason.

Darn and I didn't drop the other shoe did I! I should have asked if you could explain those motives shouldn't I! Curses well evaded sir! Do you play Rugby? You'd make an excellent five eigth!

- For these all I got was : "my reasoning is explained in the administrators' noticeboard complaint that FennShysa brought." however there was no link so effectively this was not answered

No, it meant that I would not be so kind as to make your job easy — it is not my job to fetch links for you. But in the interests of amiability, I'll do so now. The question is currently at WP:ANI#WCityMike. They do archive their talk sections, so depending on when you follow that link, you may have to instead search the board's archive or the history.

Excellent bob and weave sir! You nearly gave me a straight answer there. However if we are suppose to resolve disputes by discussion why then do you feel this desire to "not be so kind as to make [my] job easy — it is not [your] job to fetch links for [me]" Of course not. I mean the fact that everybody else must do so for you is totally imaterial.

At that point, I was admittedly feeling rather grumpy — you were not the only individual who had a rather severe problem with my nominations and was not hesitating in letting me know. Thus, I was not perhaps in the most amiable mode of dispute resolution at the time we engaged in that particular part of our discussion. — Mike 02:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In there, I answer: "It is simply that the extreme proliferation of fan-film-related articles, including each and every one I cited, has led to a large collection of non-notable articles that I felt merited exposure to a AfD vote. Nomination does not equal deletion. Nomination states, 'This user feels that the community should come to a consensus about whether this article deserves to be on Wikipedia. I don't think that that opinion is out of line ... "

...and perhaps if i had been privy to this, I too might have agreed with you and none of this would happened. So don't you think that it would have been in the best interests of Wikipedia good order to have shared this information?

Indeed, it would have. — Mike 02:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, when I voted to keep the Wikipedia article "Star Trek (Fan made productions)", I stated: "Given my other votes, you'd think I'd be in favor of this removing this article. I'm not. I think there's far too much Trek fancruft on Wikipedia, and by my AfD noms am attempting to prune it down considerably (to the great outrage of the Trek fan community), but that doesn't mean every single trace of Trek fan films has to be stamped out, especially a useful article like this that can absorb some of the contents of the articles that do pass AfD. The phenomenon is definitely worthy of coverage in an article, even if every single item is not worth its own."

However you chose to do them 22 articles at a time - all at once. Throwing the people who worked on these articles into disarray. People without power User tools such as yours. In fact some were given the "speedy deletion" weren't they? For example we were not given the luxury of having our say about "Maquis Forces International" were we?

The "power user tool" in question is something anyone can install. And as for the speedy deletion, that's a tool administrators have at their disposal. I don't necessarily agree with all of their decisions, but it's a fact of life on Wikipedia. Actually, I would've preferred AfD to run the full course on the Maquis Forces International article. — Mike 02:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you answer my questions if I apologised?

As I have answered your questions, this particular question is now academic.

True, very true

Will you tell me ANY way that I can get you answer my questions?

As I have answered your questions, this particular question is now academic.

I shall remember to grovel and ask twice before expecting an answer next time.

Grovelling not necessary; civility, yes. — Mike 02:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get the distinct impression that there is no way that those questions are going to be answered are they?

As I have answered your questions, this particular question is now academic.

...But I would not have got answers unless I pushed, would I.

Quite the contrary, Kirok. Had you been civil to start with, you would have received answers more amiably and much more quickly. — Mike 02:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was serious but all I got was "Well, after the lovely way in which you've approached this whole thing, how I could not be of a mind to answer any questions you wish to bring?"

You've been extremely unkind throughout this entire process. That was me indulging myself in a slight bit of sarcasm.

You are correct of course. My questions were couched in bitter irony at the seeming impossibility of getting some information in the face of extreme opposition.

I took this to be a rhetorical question, was I wrong?

A rhetorical question is a question "asked merely for effect with no answer expected." Yes, I expected no answer to that question.

I have a much clearer picture now of who

My name is Mike.

My name is not Kirok however it is a name that I hope has some slight reputation for trustworthyness, honour and commitment.

In this last bit of our exchange, you've acquitted yourself in a mostly honorable way, and I thank you for that. — Mike 02:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and what

I am a male human being in his early thirties.

Whilst I am not a Klingon raised by Vulcans who is in his early fifties LMAO! I am though hopelessly old fashioned in my attitudes n'cest pas?

you are and your purpose on Wikipedia.

Given that I myself am not certain what my purpose on Wikipedia is, that is quite an achievement.

Well given that it is possible, nay probable that the same thing could happen at any time, I think Pleb users such as myself really should know that there are mechanisms such as we are now conversant with.

I think it might be more accurate to say that you have a much more fixed opinion as to who and what I am and what my purpose on Wikipedia is. Whether that opinion is unbiased and accurate would, of course, be an entirely separate issue.

This is entirely possible. I have generally found that openess is a better path to parties understanding each other.

If you had deigned to explain these things by answering my questions instead of being evasive and aggressive (and I can back that up with multiple verbatim quotations from you) then all of this unpleasantness could have been avoided.

I was not in a mood to answer your questions because you treated them as a prosecutor would a cross-examination. I am, frankly, still not in a mood to answer your questions, but will do so in the interests of making the peace.

...and without any trace of sarcasm I thank you for the effort. Understanding only comes from knowledge, suspicion comes from ignorance.

However, please do not interpret my willingness to answer the above questions as meaning that I am at your disposal with regards to answering every single question you ask of me with regard to our disagreement.

I wouldn't dream of pushing my luck. I feel that I have made my point, i don't expect to you to agree. What I have learned will be discussed on the ST: Fan Prods discussion page to hopefully make our articles better and more suited to Wikipedia - isn't that the aim for all of us?

You'll have to excuse me if i don't get back to you on every point you make this week, but I am trying to put together a presentation for a major Australian convention starting in two days time and this is not helping at all. I will take this matter further though when I get the chance.TTFN

Best of luck on your presentation. — Mike 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and Qapla' Balth je' - Honour and success!--Kirok of L'Stok 01:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Earlier Comments[edit]

Well, as I said, Kirok, I didn't catch this earlier. It's very difficult to catch a response when you respond as you do; I'm not your favorite person at the moment, but the "standard" way of doing replies on Wikipedia is to do your reply on a new line, indenting. Like this:

I am making a statement. — Frank

:I am replying to Frank's statement. — Joanne

::I am replying to Joanne's statement. — Jack

:I am responding to Frank's statement. — Fergie

(And instead of the "— Frank" stuff, posts are signed with four tildes — ~~~~. That signs your name and timestamps it.)

So, anyway, wish I had caught this earlier, as your comments here were made in a much more amiable tone I would have enjoyed interacting with.

So You can't use this software to post three times in the same minute?

It's not exactly software — it's JavaScript code, which works inside a web browser. Technically, I guess you could call that software, but it's pretty much the same technology as bookmarklets. But it does do the necessary three-part posting in a matter of moments. It's thus not difficult to rapidly nominate articles for deletion. That's needed in part because there's a very large influx of nonsense articles coming into Wikipedia all the time — see Special:Newpages. But it's also used for more rational beliefs.

Thank you for the candid reply, this is not common knowledge amongst casual users as far as I know

No problem. It's useful to people who heavily participate in articles for deletion. It was recently suggested to me that I needed to be more actively involved in various Wikipedia projects, and one person specifically suggested that I participate more in the Articles for Deletion.

This is of great concern to me and I would like you to point out to me any case of me being uncivil

If you feel that I have then I apologise however the questions still need addressing

Could I respectfully ask that you point to one case where i have attacked you that I may make amends for it?

I would suggest that it is not good form to make value judgements about the civility etc of what I have posted unless you are prepared to point to specific instances. If you can, I will of course attempt to make amends.

If you very much insist, I will do so (although I may put off doing so until after work today or perhaps after work Wednesday, depending on how my workload at work affects things). But I suggest against askign me to do so, as I think at this late point in the game we're already hostile enough towards each other without introducing new fires into the situation.

I assumed good faith to start off with but the more I investigated the matter, the more I found questions that I felt needed answering

Again, accusing someone of bad faith is significant. As I've asked with others (and have yet to receive a substantial response), if you'd like to continue accusing me of bad faith, please provide proof. My actions were, quite simply, not done in bad faith.

well, now there you've got me. I had absolutely no idea that a monobok.js file was private. Mind you, I had no idea what it was, nor was it marked as private, nor have I seen any posted guidelines on this, perhaps you could point them out? Your monobook whatisname will from now on be inviolate from me. However I think it is only fair of you, if you are going to throw threats of "actionable offenses" about that you tell me any other places I am not supposed to be looking

If you click on the wikistalking link, that pretty much defines what it is. I'd define it as exploring someone's userspace (all pages with a User:WCityMike prefix), talkspace (all pages with a User_talk:WCityMike prefix) and following their contributions point-by-point (Special:Contributions/WCityMike) for the sole purpose of gaining ammunition in an argument.

I would suggest sir that your suggestion that I am not calm and rational could be construed as an ad-hominem attack to change the subject.

At the time I made that response, the extent of your claim was that the presence of the AFD Deletion code in my template was sinister. I had already addressed that. Therefore, there wasn't a need to change the subject, as I had already addressed it. My request was made for the purpose of getting an opponent who I perceived to be becoming a little upset at the AfD to calm down.

After all we all make mistakes otherwise we would be robots. Ah! But then I would be safe under the first law wouldn't I LOL

An fellow Asimov fan? Well, perhaps we do have some common ground. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ↓ plz reply HERE (why?) ↓ 17:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegation of Personal Attack[edit]

Kirok, please be advised that I believe the multi-paragraph post you made to your user page [4] to be a personal attack. Given that I have gone to great efforts to attempt to interact with you in a civil manner and to address your concerns, and you then post this, I do not believe you are interested in handling things in a civil manner and have reported the incident to the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard [5]. I advise you of this in the spirit of fairness so that you may prepare and post a defense there if you so wish. If the administrators choose to reject the matter, I will then engage in what options are available to me through the Wikipedia dispute resolution process in an effort to have you remove this personal attack from your user page. — Mike • 16:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per an administrator's instruction, the matter was moved from WP:PAIN to WP:AN/I — you can find the discussion, including your response, here. — Mike • 00:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]