| Revision as of 15:58, 16 September 2014 editCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits Carrie Moore Nation??← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:07, 16 September 2014 edit undoCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits well, since the community seems to want me back, well just have to make sure its well sourced and doesn't violate WP:BLP and all the crap gets knocked out the first couple daysNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| :::::::::::::Actually, it does relate, although you may not have realised it at the time. You should have mentioned it on the article talk page or BLPN and let someone else sort it out. Carol, even today you often claim not to understand this or that policy. I find that surprising, given how long you have been here. But what p's me off is your continued yellings of wrong-doings where none exist. You've done that at least twice in the last 24 hours in my case. If you act more reasonably, you'll likely get a more reasonable response: I'm not some sort of beastly man. - ] (]) 14:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC) | :::::::::::::Actually, it does relate, although you may not have realised it at the time. You should have mentioned it on the article talk page or BLPN and let someone else sort it out. Carol, even today you often claim not to understand this or that policy. I find that surprising, given how long you have been here. But what p's me off is your continued yellings of wrong-doings where none exist. You've done that at least twice in the last 24 hours in my case. If you act more reasonably, you'll likely get a more reasonable response: I'm not some sort of beastly man. - ] (]) 14:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' Considering the AfD was split between keep and delete, and many of the deletes were objecting to the poor state of the article, a good rewrite would probably be accepted. ] (]) 14:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Considering the AfD was split between keep and delete, and many of the deletes were objecting to the poor state of the article, a good rewrite would probably be accepted. ] (]) 14:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::::::Hmmmm, I forgot about the split. Well, now that it is clear someone does intend to f*ck with the article, which was my original concern, I might as well make sure that when it goes live I immediately put up all the good refs and what the good stuff they ref and other refs collected since. And, of course, I can have a ] fit about all the primary and poorly sourced crap in the article until those parts are removed, just like ] did a few months back. I assume that ''if'' it doesn't go live, and Sitush leaves it on his talk page, that will illustrate my point it's just ] harassment editing. So I'll chill. THANKS! <small>'''] (])'''</small> 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' I'm not entirely positive that someone else can nominate someone else's userspace items for deletion. Considering she's got a '''major''' ] here, perhaps this should be a ''speedy'' keep? <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 15:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' I'm not entirely positive that someone else can nominate someone else's userspace items for deletion. Considering she's got a '''major''' ] here, perhaps this should be a ''speedy'' keep? <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 15:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::You certainly can, e.g., ].--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC) | ::You certainly can, e.g., ].--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:07, 16 September 2014
User:Sitush/Carol Moore
As posted here the user wrote on their talk page that they were going to be analyzing me, linking to my website. I posted a harassment warning. At the subsequent discussion User_talk:Sitush#WP:Harassment_policy, I noted that in a recent WP:ANI that someone else brought on Wikihounding of me the user emphasized I'd linked to my website (way back in 2007-8), urged people to "do some research" on me, and even wrote: "I might have to start following her around more often myself if these proposals go through because someone has to keep an eye on her.". The user has been following me to various noticeboards and a few article talk pages to cast aspersions for more than a year and repeatedly posted at my talk page after I banned him.. The user then posted non-RS material they found out from their opposition research with an insulting and misleading comment. The user suddenly alleged they actually were working on a bio of me, perhaps to avoid someone bringing a Wikihounding ANI vs them. I think this is just a thinly veiled WP:Attack page - and obvious harassment - and should be deleted. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Later note: I have asked at speedy deletion if it is too late to ask the page be deleted under the criteria: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" and "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also note: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Carol_Moore_(2nd_nomination) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- AGF, for God's sake. This is a genuine effort, as I've explained to you on my talk page, and I can't see a single attack in what is said thus far. At least one arbitrator is also aware. If you're notable then you're notable. The prior AfDs closed as (1) no consensus and (2) delete, but with many people pointing out that there were sources out there. I didn't see the old version but I'll be astonished if my version isn't better. If that sounds like arrogance then so be it but please give me a chance. WP is not censored. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- If this was sincere, you would be using refs from the old article which your Admin friends easily could give you and not just be relying on my primary source comments, non-Rs and two book reviews. For example, material from the Washington City Paper, Los Angeles Times, Reason Magazine, The Washington Post, Associated Press story, Philadelphia Inquirer, ABC News Nightline and several other books. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Why? I am pretty well known for being a good researcher and there is no point in starting from a base that was rejected. A clean slate seems like a better place to begin although, yes, I may ask someone to provide a copy of the old version at some stage, just as a cross-check. (The snarky "your Admin friends" is unhelpful, btw.) I've already explained to you that I am aware of thousands of mentions of your name in sources and that they need to be evaluated: most will be useless fringe stuff but some will be ok. This is not something that will happen overnight but I've also invited you to comment as it develops. Given that you are on record as regretting the previous deletion, I'm surprised that you are objecting now. Your rationale appears to be entirely based on the assumption that I cannot research or write articles neutrally - indeed, you've called it "opposition research" in the thread on my talk page that you link above. I can be neutral etc and the research is as open as it can be, hence the vast numbers of sources to be evaluated. Carol, I detest what the Brits did to much of India's society but you'll never get that impression from my writings in Indic articles: I'm bloody good at this article writing lark, even if I say so myself. - Sitush (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Are you under the impression this will help you at WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard, someplace you threatened to take me a couple times before I told you to check what was there already? See the history of truly well known writer/activist User_talk:Cberlet. He wrote mostly negative stuff about living people he didn't like and got away with it for a long time even in days when allegedly Misplaced Pages was more civil. And there are certainly more like that editing now. So getting a COIN about someone trying to write mostly neutral info about issues is even more difficult. ("Trying" because the harassment from guys just does not stop.) The first two COIN's vs. me didn't stick and any new one won't either unless you can prove I'm getting paid to write for Misplaced Pages and I'm not. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- No. Like I said, try to assume good faith. I know you find that a difficult thing to do but try, please. I'm constructing a BLP and have no interest in whether you are a woman, a man or even a Something From Outer Space. It is true that I think you have had conflicts of interest - in fact, that has been proven in the past - but it has no bearing on writing a BLP about someone who, while not famous, I do think has a reasonable notability. That notability was mentioned in the prior AfDs but not followed-through with additional sourcing etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- So now you are making false allegations here? Where has it been "proven" I have Conflicts of Interest? WP:ASPERSIONS is against casting aspersions without diffs. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, again. Yet another waste of bluelinks. You've already provided the diffs - you edited your own BLP prior to it being deleted. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, when I didn't know better in 2006. The original written by some AnonIp said unsourced things like: Her followers prefer to focus on building a comprehensive "not quite a state " capacity for governance in smaller political units and Moore's work is most often compared to that of Jane Jacobs and Donella Meadows, who likewise applied systems theory to ecological and social problems. and I didn't see anyone fixing it up. And didn't know about AfDing. I mostly removed crap and later just put refs on the couple things that were accurate. That has no relation to conflict of interest on other Misplaced Pages articles. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it does relate, although you may not have realised it at the time. You should have mentioned it on the article talk page or BLPN and let someone else sort it out. Carol, even today you often claim not to understand this or that policy. I find that surprising, given how long you have been here. But what p's me off is your continued yellings of wrong-doings where none exist. You've done that at least twice in the last 24 hours in my case. If you act more reasonably, you'll likely get a more reasonable response: I'm not some sort of beastly man. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, when I didn't know better in 2006. The original written by some AnonIp said unsourced things like: Her followers prefer to focus on building a comprehensive "not quite a state " capacity for governance in smaller political units and Moore's work is most often compared to that of Jane Jacobs and Donella Meadows, who likewise applied systems theory to ecological and social problems. and I didn't see anyone fixing it up. And didn't know about AfDing. I mostly removed crap and later just put refs on the couple things that were accurate. That has no relation to conflict of interest on other Misplaced Pages articles. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, again. Yet another waste of bluelinks. You've already provided the diffs - you edited your own BLP prior to it being deleted. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- So now you are making false allegations here? Where has it been "proven" I have Conflicts of Interest? WP:ASPERSIONS is against casting aspersions without diffs. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- No. Like I said, try to assume good faith. I know you find that a difficult thing to do but try, please. I'm constructing a BLP and have no interest in whether you are a woman, a man or even a Something From Outer Space. It is true that I think you have had conflicts of interest - in fact, that has been proven in the past - but it has no bearing on writing a BLP about someone who, while not famous, I do think has a reasonable notability. That notability was mentioned in the prior AfDs but not followed-through with additional sourcing etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Are you under the impression this will help you at WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard, someplace you threatened to take me a couple times before I told you to check what was there already? See the history of truly well known writer/activist User_talk:Cberlet. He wrote mostly negative stuff about living people he didn't like and got away with it for a long time even in days when allegedly Misplaced Pages was more civil. And there are certainly more like that editing now. So getting a COIN about someone trying to write mostly neutral info about issues is even more difficult. ("Trying" because the harassment from guys just does not stop.) The first two COIN's vs. me didn't stick and any new one won't either unless you can prove I'm getting paid to write for Misplaced Pages and I'm not. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Why? I am pretty well known for being a good researcher and there is no point in starting from a base that was rejected. A clean slate seems like a better place to begin although, yes, I may ask someone to provide a copy of the old version at some stage, just as a cross-check. (The snarky "your Admin friends" is unhelpful, btw.) I've already explained to you that I am aware of thousands of mentions of your name in sources and that they need to be evaluated: most will be useless fringe stuff but some will be ok. This is not something that will happen overnight but I've also invited you to comment as it develops. Given that you are on record as regretting the previous deletion, I'm surprised that you are objecting now. Your rationale appears to be entirely based on the assumption that I cannot research or write articles neutrally - indeed, you've called it "opposition research" in the thread on my talk page that you link above. I can be neutral etc and the research is as open as it can be, hence the vast numbers of sources to be evaluated. Carol, I detest what the Brits did to much of India's society but you'll never get that impression from my writings in Indic articles: I'm bloody good at this article writing lark, even if I say so myself. - Sitush (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Considering the AfD was split between keep and delete, and many of the deletes were objecting to the poor state of the article, a good rewrite would probably be accepted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, I forgot about the split. Well, now that it is clear someone does intend to f*ck with the article, which was my original concern, I might as well make sure that when it goes live I immediately put up all the good refs and what the good stuff they ref and other refs collected since. And, of course, I can have a WP:BLPN fit about all the primary and poorly sourced crap in the article until those parts are removed, just like Chip Berlet did a few months back. I assume that if it doesn't go live, and Sitush leaves it on his talk page, that will illustrate my point it's just WP:Battleground harassment editing. So I'll chill. THANKS! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not entirely positive that someone else can nominate someone else's userspace items for deletion. Considering she's got a major COI here, perhaps this should be a speedy keep? Dusti 15:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and burn with fire: Keeping a dossier bio on another Misplaced Pages member in your userspace is a terrible idea. I've never seen something like this (would love to see precedent though). They can keep such stuff off wiki if they wish. The closest thing that comes to mind is Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP (2nd nomination) (2011) which was simply a short list of inactive editor names, nothing like what we have here. Come on. I actually !voted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carol Moore (2nd nomination) five years ago, and was only a "lean keep" which is faint praise from an inclusionist like myself (and the consensus was clearly to delete); but in any event this discussion is about having a wikipedia editor's bio in someone's else's userspace, not an AfD about a mainspace article. Furthermore, when one posts "Monday has come round and I'm off again. Should I do anything related to Misplaced Pages, it probably will involve an analysis of (Carol Moore)" -- this only means one thing: "Monday has come round and I've decided to fuck with Carol Moore." Put an end to it.--Milowent • 15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're actually encouraged to start articles in our userpace prior to pushing them out to the mainspace when they're ready, are we not? Dusti 15:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's fine when you're not writing a bio about another wikipedia editor. If I started DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com and Glenn Beck was User:Glenn Beck, I should be called on it.--Milowent •
hasspoken 15:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thinking more about it, I am actually flattered that User:Sitush considers me the Carrie Moore Nation of the prohibition of incivility and harassment on Misplaced Pages and even wants to write an article about me to demonstrate the credibility of the cause. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)