User talk:Erdanion/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Eradion! I should tell you that my intentions were never vandalism or anything of the kind, rather the opposite. Hgilbert asked me why I made the changes and here was my reply to him:

Hello! I'm not aware of what the policy happens to be regarding how long those things are supposed to stay up on the page, but I felt like deleting it was the right thing to do because of that individual's abuse of his ban. As I understand this, that particular user was banned some time ago from editing anything on those pages or discussion pages because his editing is not up to the standards that Wikipedia wants to promote. If I understand correctly, he had a long history of corrupting those articles with a highly biased point of view.

Currently, on this individual's discussion and user page, there is an great deal of the type of material that Wikipedia did not want on any of the articles he was banned from. But he has free reign to do whatever he wants on his user and discussion pages, including making wild unsupported claims about Waldorf or Steiner that would have gotten reverted in ten seconds had they ever appeared on those articles. The problem I saw was that a link, in the form of his name, was being provided on the discussion page.

Two weeks ago, this would not have been a problem. Anyone who wanted to click on his name and see these outrageous, unsupported allegations was free to do so. And they could weigh those arguments in the light that that individual had been banned for making such statements, which, of course, is a good thing.

However, the reason I decided that the banned message needed to be removed was due to another development. Another user posted on the banned user's page, offering to be a meatpuppet:

Let me know which sections should be changed and how in my talk page. The current state of the article is very poor.

To which the banned user replied:

Hi..Thanks for asking for my input. I'll try to get a list of changes that can be implemented in the Waldorf, Steiner and Anthroposophy articles for you by next week - I'll need the weekend to work on it. You've got your hands full, I see, with HGilbert - he's not about to let you change HIS articles without a fight......"

This, of course, would circumvent Wikipedia's original intentions in banning this user.

I became concerned that the banned user would continue editing his talk page, adding more content, and soliciting users to do what he cannot. So I removed the links, which were old notices anyways.

I don't know if I violated policy or not. Perhaps I should notify the administrators of the banned user using his user page as a solicitation for meatpuppets as well. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hgilbert"

(The above is an edit 21:29, 14 April 2007 by Bellowed, according to history page)

"Perhaps I should notify the administrators of the banned user using his user page as a solicitation for meatpuppets as well."

And of RookZero's offer to become a meat puppet too, followed by PeteK's answer that he will tell RookZero how to change the pages, that PeteK have been banned from editing. Both things violate the spirit of Wikipedia, as well as the arbitration ruling, to which User PeteK answered "YAWN". Thebee 00:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How easy it is to jump to conclusions here. I don't know RookZERO, nor am I interested in directing him to make my edits - I don't have any interest in editing these pages anymore - I gave up that responsibility when I was banned. I actually love that the articles have gotten so biased that people instantly question their integrity and seek sources other than Wikipedia. But that's besides the point. RookZero saw my observations about what is happening and wanted to know some specifics about what I think needs changing - IOW, he's asking me for what I think. That's an exchange of ideas. It is not a solicitation of meatpuppetry. [Here] was my response to RookZERO - offering to provide a list describing the edits I would make for HIS REVIEW, and I also gave him some advice and told him where to get help from other editors. There was no hint of an on-going relationship of meatpuppetry developing - this is a fabrication. There is nothing at all here to suggest that RookZERO could, should or would introduce unsupported claims or material. The apparently sinister effort here is on the part of the vandal - who is trying to control information and content and to keep readers in the dark - and to propose the ban of any editor that could provide and support a viewpoint in opposition to his own. Pete K 15:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Waldorf

Pete K cannot edit the pages, but people can -still- ask him for opinions. The line of proxy-editing is obviously gray area... But if people ask him for opinion, he can still give.

Also, the template {{user article ban}} actually links to the user banned, so I'd appreciate it if you revert the link removals. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I ask you to read WP:AC/CN again. I think DM and I actually refuted your point. I brought it back up for discussion for now. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Comment on my talk page

I read it, and I'm trying to get some second inputs from admins that were around during the initial case. Other than that, there's nothing I can do (for now).

By the way-- this is RfAr related stuff-- I'd appreciate it if you can put further comments under the talk page section labeled "WP:RfAr Related". Thanks :) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I'll try to do how you say, whatever it means :-). Erdanion 13:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Easier for me to track down where discussions are if all the RfAr related stuff is together. :P - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)