CFC members collaboration chance!

[Perfection]

How?

I'd post on the talk page of his user page.

Edit - Does he really have the authority to block me from editing, or was that just a spineless threat?

He doesn't, he's just being a dick.

 

[ybbor]

I'm currently having a bit of fun on this page.

Our beloved RockMFR seems to really hate the addition of some links to a page that would cause the deletion of his little template he uses to label people as new to Wikipedia. If he wants them deleted then of course I'm having a great time restoring them.

careful...

 

[mdwh]

I did. His talk page says "I don't like to be bothered by new users like you".

But that's Spring Rubber saying that, not RockMFR! That was part of the welcome message that Spring Rubber gave to him - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RockMFR&oldid=78628904 .

(I must admit, that is quite an unfriendly comment for a "Welcome"! But the fault is whoever wrote that Welcome template; RockMFR was the one who received it, and it's *not* a message to you.)

He's a new user too! Argue with him until he gives you an answer!

He may be relatively new in that he's only been around a month, but to be fair he's racked up over 2,000 edits, on a wide variety of articles. This is hardly comparable to someone who's joined in the last few days, almost solely to take part in an AfD that was already happening.

I'm not saying I agree with every comment RockMFR has made, but he's done nothing wrong in this regard. Maybe his "fanatic" comment was a bit off, but you can't deny that this AfD has been posted on this forum, with the effect of several users of this forum going to make a "vote".

 

[mdwh]

Edit - Does he really have the authority to block me from editing, or was that just a spineless threat?

He does have the authority to post that message (anyone does), but not to block - that's up for admins to decide. It's not necessarily a "spineless threat" - it's common procedure for editors to place such warnings even if they don't have the power to block. I'm not saying that the warning was fair - just that it's not necessarily a "spineless threat".

I can't find anything on whether those messages should be there or not - it makes the page look a bit messy for a reader, but I suspect they should be there (and they were put there by the substs). As for 3RR, well, he violated that one first...

 

[Sahkuhnder]

But that's Spring Rubber saying that, not RockMFR! That was part of the welcome message that Spring Rubber gave to him - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RockMFR&oldid=78628904 .

(I must admit, that is quite an unfriendly comment for a "Welcome"! But the fault is whoever wrote that Welcome template; RockMFR was the one who received it, and it's *not* a message to you.)

Upon closer examination you are correct. I saw the comment followed by the "Why don't you want to talk, Rock?" section and along with his general attitude as viewed elsewhere jumped to make the puzzle piece fit the hole.

He may be relatively new in that he's only been around a month, but to be fair he's racked up over 2,000 edits, on a wide variety of articles. This is hardly comparable to someone who's joined in the last few days, almost solely to take part in an AfD that was already happening.

I'm not saying I agree with every comment RockMFR has made, but he's done nothing wrong in this regard. Maybe his "fanatic" comment was a bit off, but you can't deny that this AfD has been posted on this forum, with the effect of several users of this forum going to make a "vote".

As quoted from the rules there is absolutely nothing wrong with joining just to have your first post be to add to a discussion page:

...some treat single purpose accounts as having less 'say', though this has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Users are cautioned to assume good faith, and to recall that all new users must start off somewhere.

Link.

To the contrary his "meatpuppet" insult is in direct violation of:

Do not call newcomers disparaging names, such as "meatpuppet." If a lot of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary.

Link.


EDIT- While I do appreciate the warning and all, if I get banned from editing at Wikipedia I will care exactly zero, or maybe even less than that.

 

[mdwh]

Yes, the Single Purpose Account isn't part of Wikipedia policy - but this is true of almost everything on Wikipedia. Since SPA makes it clear that it's not policy, I don't see a reason to be against it. It merely provides admins and other editors with information - it's up to them to decide whether such information is important or not.

Also, I should point out that BITE is not official Wikipedia policy either, so I don't think you can have it both ways here

To be fair, I don't think he accused any one individual person a meatpuppet (which would be an insult, I can see), he merely said there were a lot of them. And, whilst the term may have derogatory connotations, let's face it he's not exactly far from the truth given that I think it's likely that several of those comments came as a result of people being directed there from this thread.

(PS - I've now voted Keep, just so you know I'm not saying the Article should be deleted.)

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I apologize right up front, but I stumbled onto this and it killed me as several of the quotes I very recently referenced from official Wikipedia pages have already changed.


Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence

 

[mdwh]

I apologize right up front, but I stumbled onto this and it killed me as several of the quotes I very recently referenced from official Wikipedia pages have already changed.


Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence

An amusing article (though I don't think it has any basis as criticism), but if you mean the SPA article changing, I don't see it as odd that things like guideline pages may be updated. Yes it would be good if it explicitly said it wasn't official policy still, but it's nonetheless still true that it's not official policy.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

An amusing article (though I don't think it has any basis as criticism), but if you mean the SPA article changing, I don't see it as odd that things like guideline pages may be updated. Yes it would be good if it explicitly said it wasn't official policy still, but it's nonetheless still true that it's not official policy.

It was a bit over the top, but that often is how satire helps us to see. The best comedy has a grain of truth to it. Even if, as I agree, it isn't official policy, Wikipedia is still riddled with errors.

I also caught RockMFR planting a fake "meatpuppet":

* Keep, because recognizable web site. --164.107.92.120 07:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

* Comment RockMFR - This comment wouldn't be from you would it? This IP Address is from Ohio State University, OIT Enterprise Networking, 320 West 8th Avenue, Columbus, Ohio, 43201, where you are attending Ohio State. How petty of you to stoop to adding false "meatpuppets". Busted! --- Sahkuhnder 20:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
* No, that's not me. Yes, it's from OSU, and I edit from OSU. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of OSU Wikipedians. Don't make nonsense accusations LOL. --- RockMFR 22:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

* Comment RockMFR - Nonsense you claim? There are a billion people on the Internet, and only one of them would want to add evidence of this page having a "flood of obvious meatpuppets". And what an astronomically amazing coincidence, this planted comment is very stereotypically "meatpuppet", comes from your school, and was made 6 minutes prior to your logging on and making a comment under your RockMFR name. And of course you deny it, nobody expected you to confess to your guilt. Keep up your good work here on Wikipedia. --- Sahkuhnder 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm having more fun at this Wikipedia thing than I thought I would.


EDIT - And Apolyton's article deletion was ruled "Keep".

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Any members who are attacking/confronting other memebers on another site may be banned from here for those actions.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Any members who are attacking/confronting other memebers on another site may be banned from here for those actions.

No problem. I was only pointing out an astronomical coincidence and exposing the truth. And we are all in favor of the truth, right?

 

[GenMarshall]

What in the world is a "Meatpuppet"?

 

[Sahkuhnder]

What in the world is a "Meatpuppet"?

A word used to label new people on Wikipedia so that their input can be held in suspicion. Similar to n00b, only commonly used as a derogatory insult. Wikipedia link.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

No problem. I was only pointing out an astronomical coincidence and exposing the truth. And we are all in favor of the truth, right?

That's fine. I just don't want this forum to be used as a focus point for members to target other sites.

BTW, the discussion for the deletion of Poly has alrady ended with it being decided to be kept.

Also, a good job by some on bringing concrete reasons why the site should stay. Perhaps the focus needs to be made on things like this.

The Golden Web Award is the sort of evidence that meets our standards. Better yet would be to find the original publication by the awarding body, but given the nature of the web I'm not sure that such a page will be available anymore. Opinion changing. GRBerry 14:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

 

[mdwh]

What in the world is a "Meatpuppet"?

If person A says to person B "Hey, can you go to this page and vote for this", then B is a meatpuppet. It has derogatory connotations, but the concept is reasonable. If you're trying to have a discussion and do a straw poll of views, it's hardly helped if one guy gets all his mates to vote by posting on popular Internet forums.

It is *not* similar to "n00b" - a newbie who finds a link on his own isn't a meatpuppet.

Whilst people weren't explicitly asked, the AfD link was posted here, and it seems pretty clear that many people voting on that page only came from here (although ironically not all of them voted Keep). That's not to say their views aren't valid, but it's important to bear this effect in mind, as it means that the views can be heavily biased towards one side as a result of being linked on a site.

@Sahkuhnder: You've probably seen me editing on the Wikipedia articles; as I said there, I think it's unlikely that that anonymous IP was an attempt by Rock MFR at faking a meatpuppet. It *could* be, but the evidence is pretty slim, and it's a completely crap method anyway, since that anon IP couldn't be mistaken for a meatpuppet. Surely if someone wanted to fake, they'd do it properly and sign up for a new account...

 

[Sahkuhnder]

It is *not* similar to "n00b" - a newbie who finds a link on his own isn't a meatpuppet.

It is similar in that it doesn't matter how the link was found, from being pointed out, from a visitor seeing the link on the article page, or any other way, any n00b who dares voice his opinion, *as requested*, on any discussion page will branded a "meatpuppet", mocked, and ignored.

I found the CFC deletion discussion page on my own, from visiting the CFC Wiki article. I even started a new (redundant ) thread about it. Did how I found it matter in the slightest? Nope, I was still tagged as a meatpuppet just the same.

 

[mdwh]

Well, it's No Consensus

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Well, it's No Consensus

Agreed.

Why on earth would he use this anonymous IP to make votes opposite to his vote? I mean, I can understand the claim for this AfD, to support the accusation of meatpuppets (though we both know it's true that this AfD has been linked from the forum in question anyway), but no one has made any such accusations on the Black ***** article. Why would anyone do such a thing? Mdwh 00:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest not entering politics, as IMHO you aren't really suited for it. Discrediting the opposition is a time-honored tradition. If your opponent has a legitimate point that you prefer not to address, why not instead plant a false objection to your cause that has little basis, and then easily attack that instead and win? You have then successfully changed the topic away from issues you don't want to debate, won a debate showing your 'opponents' attacks are weak, and made yourself look both picked on and triumphant.

Go to the OT discussions and you will see the "true believers" try to change the topic all the time and only discuss the weaker criticisms of their beliefs. I am not saying anyone does this, but if someone was very unethical, and in the absence of any weaker criticisms, could simply use a fake account and plant some. The new hand-picked, easier to debate, issues then could be boldly dismissed with eloquence and they then could claim victory, without having to face the unpleasant task of addressing the real issues.

For our friend RockMFR, he starts with a statement of Non-notable/only trivial links. When actual notability and real links are presented, as they were in this case, what can he do? His only chance is to attack the opponent them self, rather than what the opponent said. His attack of choice is to call them meatpuppets. What if there really aren't enough meatpuppets adding their comments, or if the meatpuppets (gasp!) actually make some valid points? Why it's simple, just add in a few fake meatpuppets to justify a claim that the page is being "flooded" (as he claimed), and make sure they are obvious meatpuppets with all the worst characteristics associated with them, no name, short, poor quality comments, never appearing more than once, etc.

He can then grandly dismiss my comments grouped in with all the other meatpuppets and not actually discuss what I said (which he barely even tried to do).


EDIT - Edited for clarity.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Also, a good job by some on bringing concrete reasons why the site should stay. Perhaps the focus needs to be made on things like this.

The Golden Web Award is the sort of evidence that meets our standards. Better yet would be to find the original publication by the awarding body, but given the nature of the web I'm not sure that such a page will be available anymore. Opinion changing. GRBerry 14:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I searched for the original text of that award and found only dead ends. Perhaps TF or someone in the know could post links to the award pages so someone could then add external references to them in the CFC Wiki article.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

mmh..funky. The article is being considered for deletion