Paul Klenk
Joined 13 October 2003
Latest comment: 19 years ago by Gator1 in topic Corralling Hip's comments
Welcome to my talk page.
I am glad to hear from you. Working with Wikipedians is an exciting opportunity to learn, engage, and grow in wisdom and truth. I welcome your questions, ideas and concerns. Please note:
- I seldom copy threads between talk pages; if this is a problem, just let me know.
- I move discussions to my archives rather quickly. However, I seldom archive attacks and insults.
- I prefer to discuss articles at their respective talk pages. Please leave your comments there and bring them to my attention here.
- I welcome private e-mails.
- I sometimes talk using my normal voice, and sometimes in a sort of silly, high-pitched whine.
This page has three ironclad rules:
Those are the rules. Please follow them.
Sock puppets
I'm sure that User:216.175.112.9 is a sock puppet. Jonah has been using multiple sock puppets ever since he started editing. I blocked a handful of them previously. I suppose that we should block User:216.175.112.9 too. -Willmcw 19:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Due to his many disruptions and personal attacks, some sort of action regarding the user now known as user:Jonah Ayers would be appropriate. Perhaps an RfC? What do you think? -Willmcw 23:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- PS, yes, I think you acted properly to refactor the personal attack against you. -Willmcw 23:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- You might want talk to Sojambi, I think he's going to file one. At least, that seemed to be the implication. Derex 01:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- On the Biff Rose talk page, I extended an invitation to meet Jonah in Union Square, New York City, for lunch, my treat. Apparently we both live in the 5 Boroughs. Perhaps we can work this out in a civil manner. So far he has not responded positively, and my name remains on his official enemies list. So we will see....I'll give it another couple days. -Sojambi Pinola 01:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
RFC page for BD
Got your message. I've removed the comments. Eleemosynary 18:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
it.wiki
Hallo, many thanks for you message. We aleady linked the interview in our Village pump a couple of days ago. Thanks for your nice words... :-) Ciao it:Utente:Civvi
pl.wiki: A quick hello
Hi Paul.
Thanks for the info on the interview. I think it's the best one I've watched so far. :) I wanted to let you know I've moved it, but we all have our hands full right now (the 100K articles Press Release brought an enormous popularity increase).
Happy editing and see you at Wikimania 2006 (hopefully).
Best,
TOR
BD777 IP address
Takes ownership of it here [1] Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, I forgot to mention that I agree with your position on E - those comments are most appropriate for the talk page - see "threaded discussion" in the comments section. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Old Sandbox
I keep up with your old sandbox page. I would note merely that my attempt to fix BD777s behavior is quite clearly detailed on the RFC page, with links to diffs of what both I and he said. I'd also note that the pages you accuse me of having as "pet" pages are pages that I had not edited untill after BD777 began editing on them. While some of the signatories of the RFC are liberal POV warriors, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that I am. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- What your comment on my talk page demonstrates is that you are not doing the requiste research to fully understand the issue - for instance, you can't figure out why BD777 got vanadalism warnings - but I can, and I did, in about 10 seconds - he got them for being a vandal. Everyone who is going to look at BD777 from an ArbCom perspective is going to look at his first edit. They're going to understand why he got vandalism warnings. Unlike you, people are willing to click the previous edit and next edit. They are willing to scroll down into the text under the diff to figure out context. Why you are not, I have no idea.
- Okay, you've proved your point and mine: Yes, that is clearly vandalism, but no, I shouldn't have had to dig for it or ask you for it. Has he made any edits since that are clearly vandalism, or were the warnings sufficient?
- He has not done anything since that rises, in my eyes, to the level that I would consider banning him indefinitely, no. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- You write that you don't see how this is a rebuke - as you can see by the comment above, I wrote "please read WP:AGF". BD777 responds that he's not going to follow WP:AGF. I ask him what we can do to fix the article - he has nothing to say about that. Anyone who isn't trying to defend him is going to see exactly that he ignored my good suggestions.
- BD is making a judgement, based on his experience to that point, that AGF has evidently been abused so much that he can't assume it any longer. If it has, in fact, been abused, his statement is reasonable (but, arguably, too broad). I understand why his comment would upset you, but what is the great, big deal about that? There is not bottomless cup of coffee at Wikipedia, when it comes to AGF. At some point, for every editor, there must be an end to assuming that. Each editor must make that decidedly subjective judgement for himself. Who are you to say BD has not, in his own way, made a reasonable judgement based on his experience with editors and their work. I myself, Hip, have written a few people off when it comes to AGF (though I still engage with them as if I haven't). What I have done, that BD hasn't, is refrained from telling those people who I think they are.
- That was his 17th edit. It was his sixth edit to a talk page. He did not reference a specific author - he said he did not AGF anymore, he AYAAL - he Assumed You Are All Liberals. You are defending what is an obvious and eggregious violation of AGF. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- You write that you don't understand how [2] evidences a user trying to resolve a dispute. You don't think apologizing for the nit-picky offense that BD777 took to my above posting is trying to resolve a dispute?
- I think your apology was very gracious. It looks to me like the dipute in that case was caused by you, and that you resolved it with an apology. What other unresolved dispute is evident in this one edit?
- WP:AGF requires that I assume that you didn't see the gamesmanship in his edit by accident. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- You write that you don't why [3] was even written - obviously, you didn't look one comment back, where BD777 wrote "I think since this line was inserted directly after that CHEAP SHOT quote of hers, that a little context on how deranged some of her other statements are is quite apropos."
- I'll have to look at this in detail; but again, how far back and forth am I expected to go to find what you say is there? Just give me the links; don't make me dig for them.
- You should go far back enough that you understand everything about the context of the author. You can do this in talk pages by scrolling down to the relevent statement and reading the context. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you don't understand what's going on, how can you defend BD777? Perhaps you should go to the relevent pages and read the interactions. You were provided things to look for - if you insist on commenting, you should go look at the pages, not demand that someone copy every edit by every user. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- I do understand what is going on. I am not defending any bad behavior on the part of BD, no matter how many times people want to repeat it. I hope that is not what is bothering you here. I will not be boxed into an "either or" proposition here. And if you insist on making your charges -- however reasonable they may be -- you should do the work for your readers, and not demand that they all dig through history to find everything you allege is there.
- If you're not, we'd see edits where you tell him to stop his bad behavior. We'd see you telling him that this behavior is just plain not acceptable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- I hope you will agree I have been extremely generous with both my time and my opening up my thoughts to you. I appreciate your taking the time to read them. I may take a bit of a break here, and do some other editing. This isn't about "taking sides" for me; it's about putting this whole affair in perspective. paul klenk talk 19:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- It is your choice to continue participating. I belive you should use your time used in the way you believe the most value is gotten from it. If you believe that I am somehow indebted to you due to your efforts in opposing efforts to get BD777 to improve his behavior, let me suggest that I would like to stop incurring debts. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- "Your efforts in opposing efforts to get BD777 to improve his behavior..."
- Wow! The inherent dishonesty in that statement is matched only by it's overwhelming cluelessness. I have to applaud this author. Rarely is someone able to cram so much disinformation into one brief passage.
Big Daddy 21:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- BigDaddy777, it is truly an astonishing remark. It sweeps away all meaning from every thing I've ever said; it dismisses my heartfelt attempts at meaningful discourse with the author; it ignores all my efforts to help and influence you -- as well as to help the author; it says so much about what the flawed RfC is expected to accomplish; and it is poorly written ("efforts in opposing efforts"?). It's just not true. Evidently, the only two wikithinks available in this affair are 1] BigDaddy777 doubleplusungood and 2] BigDaddy777 doubleplusgood. I suffer from ungoodthink, I guess. You really hit the nail on the head. paul klenk talk 21:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could point out some instances where you have helped and influenced BD777 to do anything, and were succesful in such? Perhaps you could get him to apologize to Kate, for starters, or respond to the RFC, or stop making personal attacks? Or are you just interested in helping him POV war? Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Did I or Didn't I?
Paul - In response to your post on my talk page - Yes, my talk comments that were at first accidentally posted without my moniker, do affirm my current POV that Ann Coulter is hot. Big Daddy 21:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Kizzle
BD777's allegation that Kizzle uploaded a picture of a pierced penis is not accurate. Will this be an example of your "efforts to help and influence" BD777, or is it going to be an example of one of his WP:NPA violations just sitting out there?
Kizzles photo history: [4]
The history [of something else -- Paul's words added, Hip's removed]
Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- This is not an example of "my" anything... What a strangely worded question. Just add it to your little list, and if "my" anything bothers you, come and talk to me about it. And please, no more such links on my page. It should have been obvious to you that I had already figured that out. paul klenk talk 15:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry. I believed I was clear that the link was to something graphic, and it wasn't clear that you knew about Wikipedia commons. I'm asking if it will be an example of you helping BD777 change his behavior, or if it will be an example of BD777 leaving an unfounded PA just sitting out there. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Are you even listening to me? What did I just tell you? It isn't an example of "me" doing anything. It has nothing to do with "me". Leave "me" out of it. Read what I wrote you.
- Your inaction is an action in and of itself. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- You have previously asked to be informed when BD777 is acting poorly. His recent passage regarding "The Usual Method," is filled with violations of AGF and CIVIL. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
to Kate
I'm moving this discussion here, to keep the thread from sprawling on BD's page.
- "...the cites you came up with look more like they came from a Nexis search for 'Why Karl Rove is demon-possessed..." Truly a classic. paul klenk talk
- Only if you "truly" believe that I somehow biasedly cherry-picked the citations, which I did not. I wouldn't expect BD777 to think anything else, since he's already judged me, but I somehow expected more from you, Paul. Is that what you're really saying? I'd like to know. · Katefan0(scribble) 12:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Kate, you are creating a false alternative ("only if you..."). Though I didn't look at the cites, I don't have to believe that you cherry-picked anything to believe that BD might reasonably think otherwise, even if he has done so mistakenly. Surely you can see that. Please don't drag me into this because I don't find it as disturbing as you, or that it gives me a chuckle.
- I wish I could leave it at that, but I would like to give you some thoughts in the hope that they will help you as a person, and I hope that you take them in that spirit. It's a bit long, but it's from my heart:
- With due respect, the above is a good example of someone just looking for something to object to, and of the extreme touchiness that is fueling so much of the harumphing on the talk pages (is "harumphing" too colorful a word?). BD is giving his opinion about the citations. He's doing it in a funny and colorful way. You are completely missing the humor in the situation, seemingly, in order to be annoyed. The statement is hilarious; that's why I mentioned it. It is not an attack, but a characterization of text.
- Now, I realize you are an admin, and BD sometimes interprets what you do incorrectly and doesn't show you the deference you feel you deserve. He's obviously not afraid of you. Sometimes he steps out of line. So block him, or have another admin block him. Start with an hour, move to two, then to four. How hard is that? Just do it, if it's warranted, and if it isn't, move on, or keep a record of what he did in case you want ammunition for later.
- It is important that editors working on highly disputed political pages have thicker-than-average skins, not thinner. John Cleese has made a very good observation about political correctness that I think is apropos for WP: P.C. is rampant because the touchiest people among us are trying to impose on everyone else their baseline for what is acceptable behavior. They do it by whining, bullying, demanding, threatening, and taking offense. There is a lot of talk about community with respect for BD and his RfC. Well, it seems to me that the RfC is relying on the objections of those that are least likely to get along in a community of diversely-tempered people.
- And personally, I think some are doing this to protect certain pages from those bringing neutrality to them. Their irrational hatred of Bush and other convervatives, like the irrational hatred of Clinton and liberals by others, is driving their efforts to make conservatives look as bad as possible. They have a lot of creative ways of doing this, but, as in any market, this market is catching up with their efforts, and it is driving them batty.
- Don't misconstrue this to mean that I'm condoning everything BD's done. Another false alternative. I am not "taking sides" in this, and it appears that some people think I am. There is far too much going in here to lump everyone into a good camp and a bad camp. I assure you, I have given BD harsh criticism, in private, and have urged him repeatedly to give a short, thoughtful answer to the RfC that is humble, respectful, and addresses all its concerns. I think his doing so would not only be to his advantage, but to the disadvantage of his detractors. It is his choice alone to answer the RfC or not, and I respect his choice. paul klenk talk 16:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, you may not be able to "leave it at that," but I will, even though I take exception to more than a few things you've written here. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Don't misconstrue this to mean that I'm condoning everything BD's done. Another false alternative. I am not "taking sides" in this, and it appears that some people think I am. There is far too much going in here to lump everyone into a good camp and a bad camp. I assure you, I have given BD harsh criticism, in private, and have urged him repeatedly to give a short, thoughtful answer to the RfC that is humble, respectful, and addresses all its concerns. I think his doing so would not only be to his advantage, but to the disadvantage of his detractors. It is his choice alone to answer the RfC or not, and I respect his choice. paul klenk talk 16:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Corralling Hip's comments
I'd like to leave my comments above for Kate to respond, if she wishes. I will let Hip's statement speak for itself. paul klenk talk
- So, to summarise, BD777 is funny but stupid, Kate should break the rules, in public you provide him nothing but support, but we are to take your word that you have provided him harsh criticism in private? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Assume good faith. I'm sure you're familiar with that particular policy.Gator1 15:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am. I'm trying to determine if I have accurately summarized Paul's position. If I have not, I look forward to being corrected. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Good. Just checking. I'm glad to see that you are merely engaging in fact checking here, not something more serious.Gator1 15:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)