User talk:Dylan Flaherty: Difference between revisions

Yes, this[1] was an obvious imposter, most likely the AfricaTruth/AfricanTruth person[2].

I'll leave you with a puzzle. Here are three recent statements made on Wikipedia. One comes from a respected admin who's notable enough to have a biographical article, another from a famous lawyer who likewise has a biographical article, and one was the statement that got an old Irish man indefinitely banned as a menace to Wikipedia. See if you can match them up without cheating.

1. "I see [he is] overwhelming ANI again with lots of lies." [3]
2. "Thank you so much for piling on. I will give your opinion exactly as much weight as I have always given it."[4]
3. "Are you an idiot, or only pretending to be one?"[5]

What makes one worse than the other? Here's a hint: two of them are heavily involved in conservative politics, while one is just an ordinary guy whose lifelong conservativism is tempered with principle, piety and kindness.

In my short time here, I believe I've done much good, but I've also twice been falsely accused of being a sock, banned from interacting with an unstable individual who stalked my edits and banned from even talking about the idea of making Sarah Palin slightly more neutral. Entirely by "coincidence", before the Palin ban could expire so I could launch an RfC, many of the same people who have opposed my edits all along managed to pile on to an AN/I report to have my ban broadened to the entire site and extended indefinitely. And, of course, it's now a certainty that any number of people who, in the future, support some of the changes I've made will be falsely identified as my sock and permanently blocked.

I'm told that it would be easy to get the indefinite block removed: all I'd have to do is lie. I would need to play a particular role, where I'm contrite, admit guilt, and promise never to sin again. I should throw myself at the feet of the lynch mob and beg them to take me back, accepting onerous conditions that would prevent me from actually doing anything upon my return. I think it should be very clear why that would require undermining my own integrity and would be entirely unacceptable.

Wikipedia gets the editors it deserves. I'll leave it at that. Dylan Flaherty 18:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I did leave an uncivil comment on your talk history. I'm sorry, I'm having a bad day (got into an argument with my own mother on Christmas Eve, dealing with shenanigans on here). It's not an excuse. I just want to clarify: what I meant by my recent comment (which you don't have to read, or you can if you want, it was short), is that as long as you continue to fail to see the problems with your editing, then your editing will not be constructive to Wikipedia as a whole. I'd even be glad to take you under my wing to help establish a pattern that the community will take, and I'm sure there are other long time editors and/or admins who would do the same. Please just understand that the problem does lie with your current editing style; it is not with a cabal of careless administrators. But it can be remedied, if you're willing to put aside the old way of doing things. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magog, yes, you called me a dick. It was uncivil, perhaps even a personal attack, and nothing much happened. Likewise, when Rubin called that guy an idiot or when THF called me a liar three times, nothing happened. When I spoke sharply, but not quite uncivilly, to a woman whose only interactions with me have involved piling on AN/I reports and demanding more of my blood, I was banned.

Really, how can I take any of this seriously? Where is your credibility? Ban Rubin and THF, then talk to me. Oh, wait, you can't or won't or both. Given this, there's nothing for me to apologize for, nothing for me to promise, nothing for me to say. If my supposed failure to be collegial, as Becritical puts it, were actually reason enough for a permanent ban, then Wikipedia would be deserted, and you wouldn't be here, either. Obviously, the stated reason is not accurate. There's a lot more to it, or really, a lot less. Dylan Flaherty 01:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see you accept this lying down. I do support you not editing right now, but only because you tend to engage other quarrelsome editors, who equally deserve to be banned, in their quarrelsome behavior. This behavior doesn't further the articles, it just makes things unpleasant, and takes up all the time we could be editing articles. In other words, you do fail to be collegial sometimes. But I simply cannot see that you would have to give up your integrity to get unbanned. All you need to do is what I recommended over at AN/I, which is to 1) agree to try to be civil and collegial and 2) try to notice that people, even POV pushers, often have real points to make. If admitting to having acted in an uncollegial way or see other's valid points would be to compromise your integrity, then really you don't belong at Wikipedia. But I think you do, and since you have a good grasp of policy and are an energetic editor, I really hate to see you go. BTW, you are probably a sock of someone or have other experience, else you wouldn't have been so good at wiki editing right off [6]. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, I was banned for angering people who deserve to be banned, but they were not banned. I would have say that my integrity is intact but Wikipedia's is not. I will not even pretend that this ban is anything but the most ridiculous bit of petty injustices.

As for being a sock, I'd hate to break this to you, but nobody is just a sock; they have to be a sock of someone else, and there is nobody else. The reality is that I was dragged to AN/I over and over again, until my mere presence was excuse enough to ban me. And, although I worked hard and stuck my neck out to help you, you joined in the lynching. What do you have to say for yourself? Dylan Flaherty 01:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I "joined in the lynching" in order to give you a way out, which I outlined above. I was under the impression you dragged others to AN/I a lot? And I know Wikipedia can be unjust... which is what I said above. It's unjust that you were banned and others not. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I don't have a way out. The only way the ban will be removed is if I play the game, which I am physically incapable of doing. I will not lie. Dylan Flaherty 02:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GAB for your way out, Dylan. Thoroughly. Also see WP:Blocks and bans: this is a redirect page that exists mostly to show that a block is not a true ban. You are currently blocked, not banned. If "playing the game" (i.e. editing WP) is "lying", you never would have been here to begin with. Right? Using this page as a soapbox with no real intention of getting unblocked usually leads to revocation of talk page privs. That's just how it normally goes in most cases. Play by the rules or you're out: not an unfair request of anyone, really. Doc talk 02:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept an unblock, but not by lying, so it's not going to happen. Dylan Flaherty 02:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't contest that if you deserve a block/ban, there are a bunch of others around here that also deserve one. But I do say that you were blocked for your actions, not the actions of others. If you had been polite and collegial during whatever drama you were involved in, didn't edit war, and listened to others when they had a technically correct point no matter how much you disagreed with their overall outlook, I don't believe you'd be blocked now. That's what WP editors are supposed to do, and that's all you have say you'll do to get unblocked. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just to restate what Doc has to say; playing by the rules refers to the manner in which you interact with others not the things you have to say. Other Wikipedians are very tolerant of differing viewpoints. What other Wikipedians are not tolerant of is attitudes and behaviors which are beligerant, obnoxious, or rude. You can hold, and express, any opinion you wish, so long as in doing so you don't behave poorly. --Jayron32 02:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the examples above disprove your claim. Incivility is just fine for some. For others, different standards apply. It would be great if Wikipedia actually enforced its own rules with some level of consistency, but that's simply not the case. Dylan Flaherty 02:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the important pillars of WP. Doc talk 02:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above. I was more civil than THF or Rubin, but they're still standing. Dylan Flaherty 02:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look Dylan, Wikipedia is NOT a civil system (not that those are fair). You don't have civil rights here. Wikipedia is only as fair as the members of its community are in a particular case. Accept it or stop editing. Just be glad you don't live in WP in real life. And be surprised, because it took you this long to learn this. Which means, WP is surprisingly good considering what I just said. But if you choose to stay, remember that no one is interested in what others did, but in what you did. They're judging you relative to what should be, and perhaps to the overall norm, rather than relative to those who were uncivil to you. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll call your bluff. I can "1) agree to try to be civil and collegial and 2) try to notice that people, even POV pushers, often have real points to make." and yet I'm still banned. Dylan Flaherty 03:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If another administrator thinks the level of my overall incivility raised to that of Dylan's overall, in the interest of fairness I will happily submit to a block. In fact, I request that someone block me. Now I haven't read your comments, Dylan, so that's a real big gamble for me. I only have to say I didn't call you a dick, I simply referred you to a section in that essay which applies to life in general. Also, I recommend taking some time off; I don't say that to patronize you, but just because I can clearly see the WP:MASTADON effect (which to be fair, we all have). Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magog, I looked in the history and found where you said some unkind things and then reverted yourself. The self-revert is enough for me; a block would be ridiculous. Dylan Flaherty 03:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the rest, "recommending" that I take some time off would be more significant if my block were not indefinite. :-) Dylan Flaherty 03:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course you have the option of coming back under another username. Anyway, I suggest we give it a few days till after Christmas, write you up a statement, and post another unblock request, or maybe I can post it for you on AN/I... not sure if that's appropriate. And calling it a bluff wasn't very nice. You can practice on me ;) BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't. Firstly, I've grown quite fond of my own name over the years and don't wish to change it or hide behind an alias. Secondly, it should be obvious that, unless I restricted myself to articles about knitting, I would be accused of being a sock.

As for calling it a bluff, allow me to point out that I'm still banned. Posting it on AN/I would be useless, since I'd just get the same vultures as last time, including the Palin POVers.

I'm sorry, but I don't think Wikipedia is capable of fairness in this matter. Dylan Flaherty 04:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you, to try it or not. But note that the admins are not generally the same as any POV pushers. You have a good chance of getting unblocked- indeed a very good chance as this block was only intended, I believe, to get your full attention and get you to do the above suggestions. I don't recommend creating a sock. I based that on what I read in policy a while ago, which was that blocked/banned users are fine if they just come back under a new name and behave themselves. Perhaps my memory is poor, or they changed things. Sorry to see you go, anyways, it's a waste of a good editor. Let me know if you change your mind. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about WP:CLEANSTART: not sure if that applies here, to tell you the truth. And see WP:EVADE. Don't create a sock: remedy the situation if you are able to. Doc talk 05:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that is it, thanks :D No, it doesn't apply here since he wants to continue in the same subjects. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it clearly does not apply, since I have an active block. I won't create a sock, but I don't see any remedy here. Contrary to what Becritical said, an indefinite block turns out not to be a good way to get my full attention, and I somehow doubt that was the intention. Consider that, until this, I'd never been blocked at all, so this isn't a slow escalation, it's extreme overkill. I can only conclude that the goal was to get rid of me, and given how many vultures piled on to rubber-stamp it, I can't imagine that an unrepentant request for an unblock will have any more effect the second time. No, I had it right when I said I was politically assassinated. Dylan Flaherty 05:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears that it didn't get your attention, so perhaps some other sanction would have worked better than a block. For the record, I don't think the block is necessary; a proper interaction (not "civility") restriction should have been adequate. However, I do think you fall under WP:COMPETENCE; regardless of your motives, your methods are incompatible with other Wikipedia editors. If you show understanding of why you were blocked (and it certainly wasn't opposing me), and promise not to do it again, I'm sure you would be unblocked, at least until you repeat the reasons you were blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for ""Are you an idiot, or only pretending to be one?", that may have been excessive. However, the statement in question had no relationship to reality. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin, who are you kidding? You are frequently uncivil and often launch outright personal attacks. If anyone deserves a lifelong ban, it's you. The fact that you don't have one makes mine absurd. Dylan Flaherty 18:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(comment in reply to Jayron32, above)... You characterized DF's attitudes and behavior as beligerent, obnoxious and rude. In my opinion, based on what I have seen here in 2.5 yrs, Dylan didn't even scratch the surface. He may have been a bit stubborn but if I was being attacked on all sides I might get my hackles up a bit as I'm sure you would (and have). Obnoxious is really quite an offensive claim...not polite, at all. Nor was he rude. I would say a bit sarcastic and curt. But not rude. I honestly think everyone here (including Dylan) has over-reacted. And, in spite of what some of the anti-DP comments at various pages were, WP has lost a quality editor.Buster Seven Talk 08:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buster, please stop letting facts get in the way of a good lynching. I realize that I'm not guilty of the crimes I've been accused of, but no attempt to refute the merits of the accusation will carry any weight. I have already been unduly convicted by a lynch mob of my rivals, and nothing -- especially not common sense -- can overturn that. Dylan Flaherty 18:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok Dylan, but what can overturn that is love and humility. I think your collaboration at Julian Assange was pretty constructive and I imagine you're not editing Wikipedia for selfish motivation. So, for the good of the encyclopedia, if you feel you are an asset, there are some things you might consider.

• I think what may have happened at the ANI is when THF said: "Please don't lie, Dylan,..." it pissed you off; but rather than lash back directly, you controlled yourself and responded to him diplomatically, but it stuck in your craw somewhat, so when CrohnieGal made a pretty benign comment, you hit her with that angst: "Thank you so much for piling on. I will give your opinion exactly as much weight as I have always given it. Dylan Flaherty 13:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)"
• So, first thing is, do you want to be of more service to Wikipedia? If so, follow what Doc suggests above and also try to calm down and stay calm in the future.
• Regardless of what you decide to do, its a must to apologise to CrohnieGal, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like so many things, there is history here. I don't know CrohnieGal at all, except from the previous time that she piled on[7] to "politely" suggest doubling a topic ban that shouldn't have been placed to begin with. Given this, her "friendly advice" was not wanted.

Love and humility are good things, but where's the humility in a "community" that turns a blind eye to outright insults but jumps down my throat for being less than friendly to someone who has proven not to be a friend? Where's the love when you turned a blind eye to me when I reported THF for insulting and edit-warring, only to ban me when THF comes with dirty hands and false accusations? It is pure hypocrisy to demand from me what you have not shown!

As for whether I want to be of more service to Wikipedia, not at all. I want Wikipedia to be more of service to me and to everyone else. That starts with having political articles that actually follow WP:NPOV instead of hiding any potentially negative fact. And that means not handing out topic bans and permanent blocks to the editors who fight hardest to fix what's most broken.

Like I said, I will not apologize when I have nothing to be sorry for; I will not lie or beg. I will edit with integrity or not edit at all. Doc's advice does not apply, as there is no future. You have once again bitten a newbie to death. Dylan Flaherty 03:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it necessarily matters at this point, but Roscelese is correct here. Dylan Flaherty 03:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing reminds me of one of my favorite movies as a child...the 1953 classic SHANE where, at the end of the movie, the little kid (Brandon de Wilde) calls out to Alan (Shane) Ladd, the gunslinger......."Shane, Sha-a-ane, Come Back Shane". But, Shane just rides off into the sunset. Sadly it was in the era before sequels. If there was a SHANE II, Alan Ladd would be the sheriff, the kid would be the deputy, and Jack Palance, dressed in black with a walking cane resembling a mop handle, would play the evil administrator of the town. Of course all would end well and everyone would live happily ever after. Only in Hollywood, I guess. Buster Seven Talk 07:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great movie. Another great movie from the same era was Old Yeller. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. Doc talk 07:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a Western, it would be a little bit less like riding off into the sunset and a bit more like getting shot dead from behind during a poker game. Dylan Flaherty 08:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make me cry, Doc! (Saw the movie and had an old 'yellr" dog)Buster Seven Talk 07:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the re-write, you only appeared to be "shot dead"...it just so happens that Doc Holliday was just riding into town and saved your life. (A kiss from Miss Kitty didnt hurt!) And in the best Hollywood tradition you were called User:Dylan Flaherty II and lived happily ever after. Or have I had too much egg-nog?Buster Seven Talk 08:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan... have a Merry Christmas. And re Wikipedia, don't be too proud to live and too sick to die. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already doing so, thanks. I fully expect that Rubin or one of the other less reasonable admins will abuse their power to lock this page down so that I can't even point out how ridiculous the ban is. If so, then goodbye and good luck. Dylan Flaherty 18:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this note is the only thing I am going to say further on this subject. I will not reply further, so please do not expect me to. That aside, I saw doc change the placement of your reply to them, making it look like you were replying to BeCritical, and so I reverted. I have since been in discussion with them about it, and the content of that argument does not matter. I have since reverted myself with the edit placing this notation. Just thought you should know. Goodnight.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it's pretty clear that I would have to lie to regain access, and that's just not going to happen. Goodbye. Dylan Flaherty 05:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]