User:The Cunctator/Bias Talk

I'd fix if it were worth fixing, C....But as far as I can tell even the title of the page is objectionable. "Silent Ethnic Cleansing" appears to be the cant of various extremist groups. Even disallowing deletion on the grounds of moral objection, erasure is still justified on the basis of NPOV -- can't fix a title. -- User:Paul Drye
 * Yeah maybe we should change 'holocaust' to 'the jewish problem' because 'holocaust' is too biased.

I deleted this from rules to consider after I changed the rule (as you'll see if you look at the page): "Counter-argument: This is inanity. Is the rule really 'Check your alleged facts'?" I thought it was a matter of common sense that needed to be stated (since people do tend to believe whatever seems to pop into their heads on a subject--sometimes, I suspect they just make stuff up)--not inanity. --User:LMS

Now that New_Age is totally changed like Reader's Digest condensed books, I'm getting a fresh look at the effects of the scalpel in wiki surgery. Right now, I like it ! Mainly I appreciate the cleanup because of a fundamental New Age concept, which insists that the Truth is always simple. Why would the Truth about any subject be anything else but ? Think about it. ~User:BF You know Cunct, you really need to leave well enough alone. I abandoned New_Age article once everyone seemed to be happy with you over-write. Now you aren't satisfied with winning, and you need to put the deleted New_Age/Talk back in as New_Age/OldTalk. Are you out of your mind or can't you read ? I purposely erased the old content because new viewers really don't need to see the soap opera surrounding this topic(or any for the record I have contributed to, and seen you rub your vanilla icing over it and everyone dips in and says it tastes just right). Goldilocks, find another writer to imposes your standards on please ! I dread how you will trash an idea I have about writing an in-depth on the deceased "godfather of New Age" Carlos Castaneda. Perhaps you will get your rocks off like you do all over wiki by ruining each film you review. ~User:BF I swear to god you better be paying Larry Sanger to allow your intellectual property rapes to continue.

(cut and pasted from User:Larry Sanger/Talk

Larry I am sorry to be argumentative, but I have seen a person whom you apparently appreciate here as an unofficial editor(whose name begins with a C) edit every page I worked hours on, and then when this un-named "C" finishes, everyone's happy ! Why is this a collaborative effort when the winning run goes to those "We who edit the most and delete most without end win". I really think you need to warn people who are simply embedded in their own scheme of how this pedia should look, and tell them to take a vacation. Would you mind reviewing this "C's" edit record and correlate how much irritation and even apathy this creates ? DO you want articles or do you want censorship ? Thanks. ~ User:BF


 * BF - appeals to Larry may get you nowhere. The general pattern of article evolution at Wikipedia is that the majority rules. Yes this leads to a whitebread consensus on a lot of things, but the alternative is worse. I have been involved in the issues around New Age, and I fully support Cunctator's editing. If I didn't I would overwrite his work myself.


 * The present New Age article is fair, unbiased and neither disrespectful nor laudatory. I think your problem is that you want the world to know that "New Age is a wonderful thing". Fine, say that, but not in the Wikipedia. Others like Taw want to say "New Age is a load of nonsense" - that won't stand either. I have had my own disagreements with Cunctator, but on the whole I feel no reason to distrust his ethics or disrespect his judgement. You are taking his actions personally, and there is no reason to do so. (Larry - sorry for diving in on your page) - regards MB

I think this might be what started it all: From Wikipedia subpages pros and cons/Talk, October 18, 2001 12:26 am
 * How freaking rude and arrogant it is of LMS to remove pro-subpage arguments from the list. If he doesn't understand them, he should discuss them here. --TheCunctator (with the summary: "Removing pro-subpage arguments is weaselly at best")

Then: User:The Cunctator/How to destroy Wikipedia October 19, 2001 12:07 am

From Wikipedia subpages pros and cons/Talk October 19, 2001 6:18 pm
 * Cunctator, could you please be a little less abrasive? You know, your attitude doesn't win you any points or make your arguments any more persuasive.  It just makes you look like a jerk, and alienates you from just about everyone.  Or maybe you just don't care about that.  There is nothing at all wrong with renaming "/Evaluation" as "flaws" because at present the page focuses on pointing out the flaws in the pro-subpage arguments. --LMS

From GNU Free Documentation License/Talk October 28, 2001 6:02 pm
 * Cunctator, I have a public request of you. Would you please stop writing about the license issue on the wiki, so that we can focus the debate in one place, namely the mailing list?  They will receive more than a fair hearing there. --User:LMS

From GNU Free Documentation License/Workshop
 * Note: at present (October 28), the following is a "workshop" on some issues written by a partisan, The Cunctator, edited in just two instances by 203.109.250.xxx; FWIW, both of these people have been anonymous so far. The fact that it is written mainly by a partisan does not, of course, mean that it is necessarily a biased presentation of the issues.  But please be aware that this (and no other page) represents an "official workshop" on the issues raised by the page.  In particular, please be aware that these issues have been discussed publicly by many other people, and will continue to be discussed in the near future, on Wikipedia-L; please see the relevant mailing list archive to see how this debate has proceeded. --User:Larry Sanger

From User:Gareth Owen/How to destroy Wikipedia October 30, 2001
 * Claim to be an anarchist and then spend the rest of the time telling other people what to do.

See also: How to be complete oblivious to irony

From User:Larry Sanger, November 1, 2001 3:08 pm
 * But I'm going to write an essay that goes to what I see as being the heart of the matter behind Cunctator's repeated disruptions of Wikipedia. - User:LMS

From User:Larry Sanger/Is Wikipedia an experiment in anarchy Talk, November 1, 2001 11:08 pm
 * I think this suggestion is far more trouble than it's worth. If we screw up too badly, there's all sorts of things people can do to raise hell.  Just act like TheCunctator, for instance. --User:LMS

From User:Larry Sanger/Is Wikipedia an experiment in anarchy Talk, November 2, 2001 12:35 pm
 * I started to reply to this, but halfway through realized that it was pretty self-evidently a series of nonsequiturs, ignoratio elenchis, misattributions and misunderstandings, and other problems. Correcting all this is precisely the sort of thing that I don't have time for. --User:LMS

From Wikipetiquette/Talk, November 3, 2001 2:34 am 
 * I think you're according Cunctator's edits far too much importance, Simon. --LMS

From Wikipetiquette summary, November 3, 2001 2:34 am
 * Restoring old version. The point was a generalization, which holds perfectly true and which is important to note. Cunctator, let the issue rest.--User:LMS

From Vandalism summary, November 3, 2001 2:53 am
 * You're not welcome to characterize Wikipedia's policy on vandalism, Cunctator.--User:LMS

From Wikipedia commentary/Questionable pages, November 5, 2001 9:06 pm
 * Please see Wikipedia policy on permanent deletion of pages. The foregoing seems mainly to be the work of User:The Cunctator.  I will not be participating on this page. --User:LMS

You wonder why people get angry with you, and think they "hate" you, and then you continue to let this page exist. If you want people to treat you with respect, you have to treat them with respect. You still haven't learned that, Cunctator. --User:LMS

From The Wikipedia Militia/Talk, November 29, 2001 1:40 pm
 * At the risk of, well, wasting our time and dragging this out, I'm going to reply to The Cunctator. I apologize in advance to those of you who think this is a bad move. :-) --LMS

Manning, calm down.


 * Don't tell people to calm down. It is a way of saying, "I'm calm and reasonable, and you're not," when in fact you almost certainly aren't either, he probably is.
 * Is the suggestion that I am acting as an autocrat in creating The Wikipedia Militia page, or in insisting that it belongs here on the main wiki? Look, anybody could have created this page. (I would have joined happily.) And I would have strongly insisted that it stay here, because it's a great page that organizes the community. The suggestion that my actions and rules are the rules is absolutely ridiculous.
 * Cunctator, you could save yourself and us a lot of grief if you would just stop trying to act as a check on my rampant authority. --User:LMS
 * Cunctator, you could save yourself and us a lot of grief if you would just stop trying to act as a check on my rampant authority. --User:LMS
 * Cunctator, you could save yourself and us a lot of grief if you would just stop trying to act as a check on my rampant authority. --User:LMS

From The Wikipedia Militia/Talk LMS: I'm not trying to act as a check on your rampant authority.


 * Like hell you aren't. It's your purpose in life on Wikipedia.  It's what you live for. --User:LMS

And everyone doesn't like the National Guard. A lot of people don't like the existence of a standing federal army...they actually usually prefer militias. And people didn't much like the National Guard when they killed college students in the '60s.

Manning: I tried to exercise "editorial authority" by starting pages, intended as neutral, community-determined entries, on page deletion policy, what Wikipedia considers vandalism, and how Wikipedia uses the GFDL. LMS deleted or discouraged all of those entries. It is simply false that "no one will stop you".


 * That is not only false (I didn't delete or discourage all of the entries!), as you well know, it is a complete distortion of the situation.

LDC: Actually, I just had a transplant. I wanted to replace my Farrelly Brothers sense of humor with an dry Black Adder sense of humor--I read Maxim and they said that's what people were doing these days. I had to make a special trip to Sweden to do this; I got to meet the donor, who didn't seem very funny, just odd. (He said things like "I wish I could afford to wear your clothes," but I was just wearing my acid-washed, elastic-waist-band jeans and "98 Degrees World Tour" t-shirt--it's not like they were expensive! Weird.) The doctors said the transplant was a success, even though once I got back home people have accused me of not having a sense of humor. I'm starting to suspect they bilked me. This is the last time I trust Swedes.

STG--That's a fair interpretation of the situation.. Feel free to disagree.


 * I'm going to go through this with a fine-toothed comb, Cunctator, to let you understand exactly how I react to your screeds.

I just think this is a mediocre idea,


 * Why think so? It's a great idea!

poorly presented,


 * I see nothing wrong with the presentation, and you've given no reason to think that there's anything wrong with it.

which will encourage the type of communal behavior which usually leads to the stanching of creativity and communication.


 * Talk about fear-mongering! Jaysus, what possible grounds do you have, in your experience with Wikipedia, to think this?  And on the other hand, isn't Wikipedia all about communal behavior and collaboration?


 * Part of the joke that you didn't get is that we're pretending we're being "invaded" and as if that were a bad thing. If we really did think that, then of course we'd be stanching creativity and communication.  But since we (except you, it seems) don't, we're not.

The characterization of high traffic as an "invasion", a "major disaster", "war", etc. that "old hands" have to combat is detrimental.


 * Detrimental to what?

Wikipedia shouldn't need a "defense force". It doesn't need to be "defended".


 * Why don't you think so? I think it does, and carefully explained why in The Wikipedia Guard.  You ignored that explanation, as if I had not written it.  In doing so, you insult me, and I indeed feel insulted.


 * Are you starting to understand why your screeds are so frustrating to read and respond to now, Cunctator?

Wikipedia, by its very nature, I believe, is robust and indestructible.


 * It is robust, anyway, precisely because there are a lot of people who care a lot about it and who are willing to come help make sure the new people are gently brought into the fold--the same people who have joined the Guard.


 * If you think it's unnecessary, why did you join?

When Wikipedia started, people wouldn't assert, as Manning has now done, that there's a "central authority structure".


 * Er, and Manning is right about that? No; if anything, in fact, I have lost the amount of authority I have here.  This is in part because I can't be everywhere at once, and in part because there are many more voices (including many more educated and reasonable voices) in addition to mine.


 * To be fair to myself, what Cunctator failed to mention was that I then went on to define this "central authority structure" as consisting of the core body of regular Wikipedians, and specifically not as being any individual. It is quoted out of context here, and is a gross distortion of my original meaning. - User:MMGB

I think that's too bad--since I believe that there are alternate organizational/societal models which would be successful and be more distributed--but I'm not losing sleep over it.


 * I think you aren't thinking particularly clearly about any of this. What, exactly, is centralized about Wikipedia?  Go ahead, explain it, carefully, without your usual innuendo and rhetoric.

Centralized structures scale with difficulty; the only way we humans have found to do that is to increase the amount of regulation in the system, by making new rules and conventions and more strictly enforcing such rules. We've also found that such centralized systems can remain flexible, adaptive, and competitive if accountability/content neutrality is enforced at all levels; for example, the United States has the First Amendment, the Freedom of Information Act, separation of powers in the federal government, and dual sovereignty (federal and state), etc.; corporations have SEC filings, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, etc. Neither system is perfect, but the flaws usually come from failing to ensure accountability/competition/content neutrality, e.g. keeping secrets, introducing policies of bias, and punishing dissent.

Thus, in short, I have two motivations: 1) promote a distributed trust/responsibility model (which scales well) as opposed to a centralized authority model (which doesn't)


 * Well, I agree with that goal 100%. You think that you have been accomplishing this by constantly trying to undermine what little legitimate authority I claim to myself.  Well, that's just ridiculous.  That's not how to do it.  You're preaching to the choir!

and 2) promote accountability mechanisms. I think that LMS would best show leadership by doing these things too; he's choosing a different model.


 * As if the wiki system weren't already the most efficient accountability mechanism possible! I'm not "choosing a different model."  I don't know what you're talking about.  I am constantly being called into question.  So please stop this totally ridiculous insinuation that I am not fully accountable.  If there were widespread objections to The Wikipedia Guard, then I would can it.  But it seems to have gotten quite a bit of popular support--which is totally unsurprising to me, because I know the Wikipedia community!

I don't think he's trying to be a dictator or an autocrat.


 * Oh, come on! You're constantly harping on as if I were trying to be a dictator or an autocrat.  You're constantly bringing it up.

That LMS did it, is in my mind, only an ancillary issue.


 * Oh, give me a break. That is ridiculous.  Of course it's the fact that I started the Guard that got your goat.  After all, you have just been talking as if I've been abusing my power!  If the fact that I did it were only an ancillary issue, then why bring all that up and dwell on it so much?!

If someone else had presented the idea, I would have thought the same thing. The only difference is that his ideas are official policy once they're written, whereas other's ideas (e.g. mine; say "Project Sourceberg") aren't. And that's fine.


 * Sometimes, when someone else says something, it is instant policy, because it's obviously a good idea and people instantly get behind it. Sometimes, not.  When in doubt, use Meta-Wikipedia.  If you're bold enough to think something you've written should be instant policy, try it out.  But if you make a habit of constantly insulting people, and engaging in innuendo, as you have been, Cunctator, then don't expect me or others to look kindly upon your attempts to define what the community is about.  You seem to be hell bent on alienating yourself from nearly everyone.  If you don't play nice, other people aren't going to want to play with you.


 * In the case of "Project Sourceberg," it was a not-particularly-popular idea that had more or less already been started, by Bryce (another person who is not me), on Wikibiblion.


 * The Wikipedia Community, on the other hand, was a great idea (I think).

But it does mean that his actions, with respect to the future and nature of Wikipedia, are of an entirely different nature from everyone else's.


 * Yes, and no. Yes, because I am a paid project organizer.  I think it's my job to formulate Wikipedia policy, finding consensus when I can, and presenting things fairly.

If it were anyone else, I would have just edited the entry mercilessly, instead of commenting on it. Please understand this. --TheCunctator


 * No, I think that you would have edited the entry mercilessly if I had not signed it. And, I signed this page in particular because I found myself referring to myself, and felt too lazy to change it entirely to the third person.  So, why don't I do that, and then you can feel free to edit it.  Of course, remember that, if you say something that I think is wrong, then I'll explain my reasoning and change it back (probably to something that acknowledges your attitude).  You might notice that I have already done this three or four times--changing the text to accommodate comments by various people.


 * I am not going to keep up this replying to you; I'm going to go back to ignoring you, Cunctator, unless you start treating me and others with respect. You probably think that you have been, but you haven't.  I don't think you're capable of that, actually, because I think you don't yet, in your evident youth, know what respect means.  It doesn't mean agreeing.  You can respectfully disagree; polite people do that all the time.  I hope that the above reply will have helped you to understand just how and why this sort of things that you write is completely outrageous. --User:Larry Sanger

From http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?User:The_Cunctator, November 30, 2001 2:56 am


 * Really, really bad idea, nay, a breathtakingly idiotic idea: constantly shooting yourself in the foot by constantly using inflammatory language, such as "fear-based," above, instead of trying to engage people with whom you disagree in polite, reasoned dialogue. The Wikipedia Militia notion isn't fear-based.  If you think it is, you just don't get it.  I'm not engaging in fear-mongering.  I'm trying, in what was intended to be a lighthearted way (until you came along and spun it in a way that made me look as bad as possible), to get people turned on to the idea of doing a whole lot of work whenever the time comes to make sure that a huge crop of misguided new people do not ruin Wikipedia--as they could.  Most people who arrive "get it."  There is always a minority who don't, and they need teaching and dissuading from doing really damaging edits.


 * The above sort of comment, Cunctator, borders on libel (because not only is it false, it's outrageously false and completely insulting, and seems designed to damage my reputation). This frankly outrages me and wastes me time.  I maintain that I am a very reasonable person.  If you reasonably raise a point, I will reasonably respond.  If you accuse me of "fear mongering" and "a bunker mentality" such that "a red flag should be going up," as you are constantly doing, then you cannot expect me to take you seriously.  So stop it, already.  Treat me nicely, and I will treat you nicely. --User:Larry Sanger

From /Talk


 * Our Wikipedian Cunctator chose this name just to tease us (I assume).


 * I thought it was intended as the polar opposite of 'dictator' given his often-voiced complaints against excessive use of authority here on wikipedia, sort of a wry pun on "dick"? --User:Ed Poor

From /Talk
 * Good job on the logo. See what you can do when you focus on producing something of value? --User:LMS

In response to moving the above comment to this page (The Cunctator/Talk revision 67):

From /Talk summary December 7, 2001 5:21 pm


 * Don't delete part of what I wrote, Cunctator. I INTENDED to give you a back-handed compliment! :-) --User:Larry Sanger

In response to again moving the above comment to this page, this time with a link to this page (The Cunctator/Talk revision 71):

From /Talk summary December 7, 2001 9:03 pm


 * Forget it, then. I won't comment on your page, if my comments continue to get defaced. --User:Larry Sanger

From /Talk

Cunctator, why do you have to make an issue of virtually every time I have exerted any significant amount of authority at all? --User:LMS

Now, given that you've said you're going to stop pushing my buttons, why did you add the above comment to this page? It seems mainly a way to push my buttons. If not, what is the purpose of this page, Cunctator? The natural interpretation is that you want this to be a sort of "Hall of Shame" primarily for me. Is that correct? Or will you cleverly explain it some other way? I can't wait to hear your explanation. --User:LMS

From http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Listing_deleted_titles

I want to make a comment about something I did, very deliberately, on the "page titles which have been deleted" page. The Cunctator, for some strange reason, saw fit to list all the pages of his that were deleted by me on (he says, and I suppose it's true) Nov. 3. Among these pages was--he invites you to consider the delicious irony--"Page titles which have been deleted". I do not actually find that ironic at all. I find this to be a perfect example of the not-very-subtle trolling that C. continues to practice here.

This pointless game-playing, Cunctator, has to stop. It obviously doesn't help the project. Don't you care about that? If you're still bothered, let's talk about it openly, not by playing these sort of games. If you can't let it drop, let's talk about it. Your edits, such as putting the pages of yours that I deleted on the "page titles which have been deleted" page, indicate that you are deeply disturbed about how I have treated you. Let's get it out in the open, then.

In the interests of full disclosure, on said page, in the version that it seems I deleted, he originally listed a number of pages that I deleted. It was, along with his "reasons for deletion" page and his additions to the "vandalism" pages, essentially a way for him to point out the awful, awful insult and harm that was done to him by my--what?--by my removing his archive of vandalism from his personal pages! That's what started all of this. Pretty ridiculous, isn't it?

Come on. We have better things to do with our time. Don't we? --User:Larry Sanger

From Wikipedia-L March 1, 2002


 * Jimbo Wales:
 * But for now, there's no pressing need unless and until we find chaos descending on us from the lack of constant oversight.


 * The Cunctator:
 * Which really means that its important for all of us, every contributor, to feel vested with responsibility. We are all responsible for oversight.

Larry Sanger: I agree. I think that the Cunctator is one person you have to watch like a hawk, however, and he of all people has no moral right to say what he is saying here.

March 1, 2002 Larry Sanger deletes this page, an action which requires sysop authority.

From user:Larry Sanger 15:40 March 1, 2002

Re a recent user's subpage deletion by yours truly (it was a catalog of quotations by me that were critical of him): ahh, that was enormously satisfying. :-) --Larry_Sanger

From Wikipedia-L April 9, 2002

Manning Bartlett:

We have run into at least one character similar to 24 in the past - Cunctator. (Although 24 seems worse). That is - a person who is clearly quite intelligent, capable of making very worthwhile contributions at times, but frequently unable to distinguish between the encyclopedia agenda and their personal agenda.

The solution to 24 is probably the same as with Cunctator - the silent ignore and passive editing approach. Maveric has tried to reason with 24 repeatedly, but when reason is clearly failing there is nothing else to do but protect the project.

As much as people seem to hate admitting it- there is a "cabal" in operation at the Wikipedia. However, rather than being some secretive and exclusive operation, it is a freely admissive assembly: Live by the rules and you're in.

From Wikipedia-L August 28 2002

AstroNomer: I deleted the "September 11, 2201 Terrorist Attack/World economic effects" page. It had an history of one line, "script conversion", and its content was "This page doesn't exist anymore" or something like that (you can see the log). Why can that be needed? Even if we want the article,

a link with a ? is more useful than that "article". Should I have waited for a vote on "that"?

The Cunctator: Yes. Or something, because it caused unecessary consternation

(in me) since I didn't know why the page was deleted. This page's history should be restored (go Brion Vibber!) so we can find out what happened to the article. It's definitely a worthy topic, in any case...

Thanks for the explanation. There should be a better mechanism for explaining why a page like that is deleted.

Lee Daniel Crocker: I think you are alone in that response, Cunc. The rest of us are willing to put a little faith in the other sysops that when they delete a page, it really deserved it, and there's no use agonizing over what might have been. I don't want sysops burdened with having to explain themselves all the time, or having to put to vote the simple deletion of complete nonsense. We have work to do here. Just do it, and don't look back.

From Wikipedia-L, Sep 23, 2002

For a change, I agree with all that Cunc is saying here. Brion Vibber

From Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/In Memoriam 8:14 Sep 25, 2002 in response to my request to work on a way of dealing with the page acceptable to all parties

Cunctator, I think it has been discussed enough. This is not an encyclopedia article. Period. It may be the most popular page in the web, but I don't care. We are building an encyclopedia here and this doesn't belong here. If we want popular pages, we should stop this project and start a porno website. We could even earn some money, then. Jeronimo


 * Hurray, I made Cunctators' Bias Talk...

From Wikipedia-L en.wikipedia.org discussion, October 10, 2002

I ain't heard nobody but Cunc object so far, and he doesn't say why. I await the reasons with bated breath, if he's got something better than "the English Wikipedia needs a large pool of people working on it to achieve neutrality and perspective, but I apparently don't give a rat's ass about the contents of Wikipedia in other languages" to show for it. Brion Vibber

From Wikipedia-L:

I really hate saying this, but, um, I'm with Cunc here. Lee Daniel Crocker

''[http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-October/005939.html Wikipedia-L]:''

For someone who says that "more effort should be put into building the cross-link capabilities" and "there should be the option of having Recent Changes show changes from any array of the languages", you're putting an awful lot of effort into stalling useful work to those ends by yakking on over this tiny thing.

Brion Vibber

From Wikipedia-L Oct. 25, 2002

We're all concerned with abuses of authority. Cunc merely has a different definition to everyone else.

Gareth Owen

- From Wikipedia-L Oct. 27, 2002

And other people here will leave if decisions are never made. Let me make a request now for people to say so if they would leave if TC were really able to veto every decision ever made about Wikipedia. I'll bet that this request gets a response ^_^.

Toby Bartels


 * Cool! a page of all of the insults that The Cunctator's been given. For the record, the above wasn't meant to be an insult itself, only a reference to the fact (widely accepted, even by himself) that he is disliked by several people. (And we've already talked about the below.) &mdash; Toby 17:35 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)

From Wikipedia-L Nov. 6, 2002

After Danny wrote this:

Hi

I never wanted to use my block function, but I did. 66.57.25.123 just vandalized an article and posted a threat. Was that the correct response, or should that user be unblocked.

Danny

I responded:

I'm confused. If you never wanted to use your block function, then why did you? Admit that you wanted to use it.

And why, if you have questions about whether you did the right thing, did you do it before checking with others?

Don't be wishy-washy.

which invited these reponses:

Are we still looking for things on which you're the sole voice of dissent?

Gareth Owen

and

And why, Cunctator, if you're such an asshole, do you continue to infect the world with your existence?

Toby Bartels

My reply:

That's a leading question. Why do you assert I'm such an asshole?

Thusly:

Toby, that was a smelly thing to say.

And Cunct, please stop being such a prick.

(signed) a man with a "poor" sense of humor

Ed Poor

and

Now, now. Cunctator, Toby. Both of you have used the word "asshole". You're even now, so cut the crap.

Ortolan88

and

I like how you copied down even the word "such". It contributes to the impression that you're a bot. (Eliza would have copied down the word "such" just like that. Actually, Eliza would have refused to talk about herself, but switch pronouns and then it works.)

Anyway, I didn't support the statement, because it was based directly on the content that I provided. And it's a subjective judgement, I can't argue for it rationally. (Also, I doubt that they would want to read such an argument.) Let each person that read that context make up their own mind.

Of course, if your subjective judgement is different from mine, then how can I expect you to answer my question? But I don't expect that at all; it was a rhetorical question. No response is required of you (the less the better, in fact).

Toby Bartels

then

Y'know what? I was just about to ask if Cunctator was a Turing device. His responses sound just like a bot parroting back questions.

Zoe

and

Cunctator, it seems to me that you don't care that you have alienated, put off, not just Toby and Gareth but a large number of people on the project. This is upsetting people on the list, and for good humor among these key project participants, I'd like to ask you publicly to *start* caring, and to *stop* taking yourself so damn (sorry) seriously.

Larry (who I'm *sure* Cunc will listen to on this)

From Wikipedia-L November 11, 2002

"And Cunct, please stop being such a prick."
 * -- wikipedia-l gains a new mantra (Wed Nov 6 2002)

Gareth Owen

From Talk:Judeocentrism

Left to his devices, "the cuncator" would appear to want to "cuncate" Bibles into Cliff notes. -'Vert

From Talk:AKFD 04:59 Feb 28, 2003

The Cungcator is right about one thing: 'There are no guarantees."-Stevertigo

From User Talk:MyRedDice 19:12 Mar 2, 2003

I uberunderstand - the Cungcator is bold in his bogus assertions, these days isnt he? -Stevertigo

From Wikien-L March 20, 2003

For once, I agree with Cunctator.

--Erik Moeller

From Wikien-L March 20, 2003

Toe to toe with the Cunctator - not!

I'd love to turn this mailing list into a debate forum, and I consider it an honor to have attracted the attention of such an awesome exponent of personal liberty as the Cunctator.

But Jimbo would probably not like it.

So I guess I'll just get back to work.

Pacifically,

Uncle Ed

From Wikien-L March 20, 2003

Cunctator has already stated previously that he does not believe in consensus, and will do whatever he damn well pleases.

Zoe

From Wikien-L March 25, 2003

Our curmudgeon

Oh, dry up. You always say this or that doesn't belong on the mailing list, and then you turn around and say that we *didn't discuss* things enough, like the slogan naming policy.

I don't mind your being curmudgeon -- we need at least one! -- but would you please do it in a consistent way?

Ed Poor

From [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (slogans) March 26, 2003

Since Cunctator will do whatever he damn well pleases, what's the point of discussing anything here? -- Zoe

From Wikien-L April 10-11, 2003

RK wrote:

I am apalled by Fred Bauder's personal attacks on me. He claimed to have read the Talk page for the Idolatry article, yet in point of fact Fred Bauder failed to mention all of the flames that "Dietary Fiber" write about to me, Fred failed to mention the fact that Dietary Fiber is on some quest to attack my personal religious beliefs (which is blatantly inappropriate on Wikipedia); Fred "overlooked" the forged quote, and then Fred only quoted my response to the trolling...and then stated that _I_ should be put on some sort of watch.

I am saddened by his behaviour. If Fred Bauder cannot control himself, let him go elsewhere until he calms down. Some of us have serious work to do.

I responded:

Oh, please. Fred quoted actual material, while RK characterizes other people's comments as "personal attacks", "flames", and "trolling", without making direct quotes.

It is not standard Wikipedia policy to move discussion from entry pages to user pages; it's not necessarily wrong to do so, but in the case of the text RK moved (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Dietary_Fiber&oldid=8 09427), the text is clearly in context and impersonal, and RK's action was inappropriate.

Then RK seemed to get a bee in his bonnet for DF's paraphrase of RK's statement


 * This article then points out that this view is not accepted by many liberal Chrisitans and Jews, is not accepted by modern historical studies of religion.

with this statement (by DF)


 * You indicated that idolatry has a non-religious meaning by referring to a "liberal/scholary" view; as opposed to a religious view.

which certainly seems to be a fair paraphrase--though the quotes shouldn't have been there. Then the discussion went southward. But RK certainly threw the first punch.

In other words, RK is unjustifiably, and viciously, attacking first Dietary Fiber, and now Fred Bauder. I'm appalled, and saddened. And appalled.

as always, tc

RK responded on 11 Apr 2003 08:06:25 -0700

[WikiEN-l] Should we do things Fred and Cunctator's way, or act like adults?

I should point out that the Cunctator's remarks about the dispute in the Idolatry Talk page were dishonest and misleading.

I was angered at Dietary Fiber for making certain remarks, especially the ones in which he/she attacked my religious beliefs, and made me out to be someone slandering all polytheists. (And I have never done this.) I was also bothered by Dietary Fiber's fake quotes (which my critics here are blatantly lying about)

Yet Cunctator ignored those particular remarks, and implied that they didn't even exist. When Cunctator did make some brief quotes, he left the particular quotes in question out! A lie by omission is a lie nonetheless.

Hey, maybe we should edit some Wikipedia articles today! We can forge a quote from Cunctator, questions his religious beliefs, and attack positions he does not have! We can also do the same thing to Fred Bauder! And then when they complain, we can insult them, and deny that these attacks against them even exist! Hurrah! How wonderfully fun it would be to join in with this type of trolling!

Or we can cut the crap and learn to act like adults. Some of us are here to do some serious work on this encyclopedia project.

RK

From User talk:Tannin 04:45 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

You'll love this :-( The Cunctator is now trying to insert Fred's stuff into Communist state. Oh God. Here we go again. ÉÍREman

From Talk:Communist state May 10, 2003

THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE ON THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC THEORY OF MARXISM-LENINISM. THIS IS AN ARTICLE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATE STRUCTURE OF A COMMUNIST STATE!!!!!! READ THE ARCHIVED PAGES SO THAT I DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT WHAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

ALSO, SITE OWNER JIMBO WALES AGREES THAT FRED'S CONTENT DOESN'T BELONG IN THIS ARTICLE (SEE THE MAILING LIST), SO YOUR EFFORTS TO INSERT FRED'S (PERHAPS YOUR) POV COULD GET YOU BANNED. --172

As I said before, your shouting is rude. You also have a deep misunderstanding of Wikipetiquette, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and Jimbo's role. I hope you will consider improving your understanding. --The Cunctator

I know that it's rude. So is trying to insert your POV after JTD, Tannin, Tarquin, other users, and I have probably written well over a hundred pages on this page, user pages, and the mailing lists explaining why these poorly written paragraphs don't belong here. And here you come, interjecting yourself in the debate, being a further nuisance. I doubt that all of us could say anything else to convince you; you seem far too dense. So quit being so lazy and why don't you go through all our explanations and do some research to see if we're not all engaging in some kind of conspiracy and making these arguments up ourselves? 172

From User talk:Ams80 May 10, 2003


 * 1) The Cunctator turned up at the end, ignored all that had been said and all that has been agreed and demands his is best.
 * 2) I will ignore the arrogant and illinformed misrepresentation of political theory and science. As someone knowledgeable in the area you know the facts. The Cunctator patently obviously doesn't. --Jtdirl

From Talk:Communist state May 11, 2003

Re The Cunctator: on a talk page tonight he let slip his real reason for his behaviour. It isn't this page at all. He refuses to accept the manner in which political scientists analyse questions. With monumental arrogance, he believes that his way of throw everything into one article, no matter how many problems he causes, is superior to the way used by academics, political scientists, researchers, historians and people who do this sort of analysis for a living. His edits here are simply part of pushing an agenda. The fact that this page is organised in the standard manner of international research bugs him, because our infallible all knowing Cunctator knows that everyone else's way is wrong, the way by which one rights up research is all wrong, because he knows best. The fact that he has a poor grasp of the facts and a monumental ignorance of how academic research is done don't bug him because he knows best and the entire academic world is going to have to do things his 'superior' way. Jtdirl 02:48 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

From Talk:Communist state May 11, 2003

I think it's hightime that the Cunctator, Fred Bauder, and slr all be banned. It's clear that they didn't get understand the Lir and Clutch incidents. --Zxcvb

From User talk:Ams80 May 11, 2003

There was a solution which Fred was OK with, until The Cunctator decided unilaterally to undo it. *sigh* And so his nonsense continues. Jtdirl 18:49 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

From Wikien-L May 14, 2003

I wrote:

I'm just hoping Wikipedia doesn't significantly factionalize--or rather, stays in factions of one. I'm mildly disturbed by the way 172 invite particular people to work on an entry ("Wanted: Tannin, Sluberstien, and Jtdirl") http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Industrial_Revolution&action=history because I don't see that kind of behavior boding well for the future.

Tannin replied:

Subject: [WikiEN-l] Please, no more personal attacks

Knock it off, Cunc.

That's quite uncalled for, and I'm getting very tired of your relentless sniping on this list. If you had bothered to THINK about it for a momemt, you might have realised that the three people named were named for a good and obvious reason:

I have a degree in that field and (before I went into business) used to teach it at tertiary level.

Slrubenstein can also be presumed to have formal qualifications in the field (doubtless higher ones than mine) as he too teaches it at tertiary level

Jtdirl has a phD in the field, and teaches it.

You have a problem with professional expertise? Or are you just making trouble?

Please quit unilaterally deleting items from the Votes for Deletion page without discussion. Why am I under attack for my actions, but you think yours is fine? -- Zoe

From Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' July 2, 2003 19:45 (UTC)

I think Cunctator should be ignored until he presents any arguments for his position. --Eloquence

From WikiEn-L October 24, 2003 10:59 AM

Oh, Alex, you're making it too complex; stop thinking like a lawyer. And, Cunc, stop being a dick ;-)

--Ed Poor

I don't believe you had any right to unprotect Sunset High School when it was your own edits that led to it being protected in the first place. I have replaced the protection. Please respect this rather than abusing your sysop ability to unprotect the page. Angela 20:27, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You really don't have the right to keep unprotecting Sunset High School and I don't want to get into some ridiculous protect/unprotect war. Can you please just discuss the issues you have with it on the talk page instead of trying to abuse position. Angela 02:15, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

''From Talk: Sunset High School 06:43, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC) My definition of an edit war is a process of reverting and re-reverting a single article, scrolling recent changes, disrupting the Wikipedia, usually over some petty difference. What happened yesterday fits that description.

The difference between protecting the page and simply asking the parties to stop is moot, since both were done, and one party to the edit war had the integrity to stop and assess what they were doing. The other one (you) didn't; moreover, the entire premise of your edits is a unilateral attempt to change the guidelines of where a VfD notice should be posted, without discussion, without even the slightest attempt to achieve a consensus change. Sanctimonious? If you have a problem with the way I perform as an admin, I suggest you point it out; I have a definite problem with the way you have been performing lately as an admin, and I think you should resign. Frankly you're acting like a spoiled child. - Hephaestos

On WikiEN-L on 11/26/03 9:20 PM, "John Robinson"  wrote:

After having today discovered User:The Cunctator/Bias Talk I have a couple of questions:


 * 1) Why was this person made an admin in the first place?
 * 2) Why does this user remain an admin after abusing that privilege in an edit war?

These questions are not rhetorical.

- Hephaestos

On WikiEN-L 11/27/03 7:41 PM, JTdirl wrote:

But that misses the point, Mark. :-) The independent republic of TC operates under different rules to wikipedia. You can't expect Cunc to actually /obey/ the wishes of everyone else, now, can you? When tc visits a page, /his/ own rules are all that matter, as he has shown most recently by unprotecting a protected page so that he can get his own way. Wikipedia rules like on protecting pages don't apply in tc-land. :-)

From Requests for adminship

I would like the request that User:The Cunctator be de-sysoped -- or could someone tell me why they should be a sysop. Recently they undeleted the santorum page, after the page had been deleted after the normal vfd procedure, and undeletion talk favored keeping the page deleted. Then they decide, unilaterally again, that a certain page listed on vfd shouldn't be deleted and proceeded to remove the vfd boilerplate from that page. When this change was reverted, they instead moved the boilerplate to the bottom of the page -- leading to small edit war over the position of the notice. Another sysop stepped in a protected the page, however 12 hours later The Cunctator unprotected the page (something that only sysops can do) and restored their edit. The Cunctator seems to believe that the vfd page is irrelevant and that he is not bound by it, or the communities consensus, in any way by. Beyond that, I don't trust their judgement, and good judgement is why someone is supposed to become a sysop in the first place. Maximus Rex 06:40, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I support this request. It is worth pointing out also that when questions were raised about The Cunctator's behavior in the edit war, the main reasoning behind his remarks in his own defense were along the lines that different rules should apply to administrators than apply to other users. This is not the sort of attitude we should foster here. - Hephaestos 14:01, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I cannot honestly oppose this request. In my view he is a valuable contributor. But we should be able to require that sysops, either accede to the policies formed in consensus which even non-sysops have an equal input, or in the contrary case act consistently to change the policy, but remain within the policy while the change is being debated. This is just my view. Others may legitimately disagree. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 14:11, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, where is that proposition that sysops and non sysops should follow different rules Cimon ? What does it consist in ? Is it just in a talk page or is there a meta page mentionning it ? ant

He should receive a specific warning before any further action his taken. His actions, while inappropriate, were not substantially so. Other sysops have made more serious violations, and no action has been taken whatsoever against them. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I think The Cunctator's behaviour over a long period has been way beyond what is acceptable for a sysop (his antics on ignoring the consensus on the redesigned front page was just one example). But using sysop powers to unprotect a page so that he could, not for the first time, ignore everyone else, was abuse of his powers. On its own it was highly questionable, but given it was not the first, or the second, or the third, time he acted in gross breach of consensus, I think there is no other alternative now but to remove his administratorship. FearÉIREANN 22:03, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In my estimation, The Cunctator has not been using his administratorship well, so I support removing it. Most notably, he repeatedly unprotected a page where he was actively involved in an edit war and seems to have been the main instigator. 4 or 5 different sysops attempted to re-protect the page, but The Cunctator repeatedly unprotected it. This is way over the line. I am concerned that sysops who abuse of their status can cause more harm to Wikipedia than users, drive more people away, waste more time, etc. Daniel Quinlan 00:17, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)

I find TC evasive, oblique, condescending and instigative on many issues, something I do not find ideal sysop qualities. -- Fuzheado 04:26, 2 Dec 2003

It's not really about punishing TC. At least, I don't see it that way. It's just that TC has illustrated particularly poor judgement as a sysop. He could be a nice guy and a great contributor and a boon to the community, but I've opposed nice guys, great contributors, and boons to the community &mdash; when I didn't think they would be good sysops based on how they interact during the editing process. -- Daniel Quinlan, 21:24, Dec 1, 2003

From WikiEN-L On 11/29/03 1:21 AM

You're an ass. I have no interest in discussing anything with you now, or in the future. RickK

WP:CIVIL
As an admin you apperantly have no idea of civility. This user is a non-member of the Retarded Fascism Unit. Right. You earned my disgust, congradulations. -- Cool CatTalk 17:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you happen to support vandalism on wikipedia? It appers you oppose semi protection, ricks anti-vandalism barnstar as well as the counter vandalism unit. It sounds like you support vandalism. Are you sure you are worthy of admin tools (strictly judging from your incivil and rather annoying attitude here at wikipedia and on the mailing list). I DOnt believe if you had an RfA now it would have passed. -- Cool CatTalk 17:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Did I miss the queue for the funny little mustaches? --Astragal 19:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

mod userbox
I ask you kindly not to put back the aggressive and attacking userbox you had. I took the liberty of removing it. It doesn't promote good feelings among wikipedians (which is also your main problem about the CVU, isn't it?). It's divisive and unnecesarily insulting. Please do not put it back. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 20:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. You could be blocked for putting abusive matter on your own user page. -- RHaworth 21:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but actually I'm asking it as a favor -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the new userbox looks spiffy! And actually explains why you don't like CVU. Hooray! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I find the userbox infuriating. Jimbo Wales feels it is bad taste. -- Cool CatTalk 01:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

NPA Warning
Please be aware that edits like this may be interpreted as rude or incivil by other Wikipedia editors. Personal attacks are not allowed under any circumstances on Wikipedia, and may result in blocking if they are persistent. Thank you. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Attack Userboxes
From User Talk:Jimbo Wales

Are attack userboxes ok? Since a former arbitrator is using them, I think you would want to know and perhaps voice an opinion. -- Cool CatTalk 17:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is in poor taste. It isn't technically a userbox, since it's just raw text in his page, as opposed something in the template namespace.  That doesn't make in any less bad taste, but it changes the social tenor of the problem a bit.--Jimbo Wales 18:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The Cunctator's attacking userbox
from Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I've removed three times a very aggressive userbox from Cunctator's userpage:   on the grounds that it goes against civility pillar. The fact that one dislike some wikipedians does not justify namecalling. Requesting politely to stop has been fruitless, so I'm requesting help on enforcing policy and guidance for further channels of action if this continues. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 07:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah that subst template meets the new CSD T1 requirements by Jimbo. It is nonsense and should be removed on sight. People who put that kind of stuff up should be warned and blocked if they revert war. Voice of  All T 07:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not really a template, but a modification on a substed template. So there's nothign to speedy, nonetheless, it's a very incivil and inflammatory userbox -- ( drini's page  &#x260E;  ) 07:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL, it's true, CVU is fascism/totalitarianism. Alias Wooga 07:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's not the problem though. Anyone is entitled to disagree or dislike. It's the uncivil namecallign that it's uncalled for. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 08:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Calling an organization "retarded" is not a personal attack. Eli Cartan 08:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim it was a personal attack. I claim it's uncivil and therefore against official policy. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 08:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL doesn't say anything about removing everything you find to be uncivil. It says "Try and discourage others from being incivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally." It's hard to say that this editor's opinion is negatively affecting the editing of articles. WP:CIVIL offers a number of different ways to discourage incivility, of which removing the incivility is only one (controversial) way. Another few you might try are:
 * Do not answer offensive comments. Forget about them. Forgive the editor. Do not escalate the conflict.
 * Ignore incivility. Operate as if the offender does not exist.
 * Walk away. Wikipedia is a very big place.

KWH 13:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Kill it with fire. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes...we should delete it. Let us not allow an "anything goes", "tolerate whatever the hell anyone says no matter what" "lassiaz-fair" policy. Now that is against common sense. Voice of  All T 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

From WikiEN-l Mar 7, 2006 7:47 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] April Fool's Day proposal Sean Barrett  wrote:

That's the Cunctator approach in a single sentence. Anything said by anyone with any positive reputation, or, God forbid, actual authority, is prima facia wrong, regardless of content. If it were said by someone else, it might not be, but if Jimbo says it, it is to be dismissed out of hand.

From WikiEN-l on March 10, 2006

On March 10, 2006 3:25 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

Subject: Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny under any circumstances

Else you may be blocked or temporarily desysopped. These tags are bloody serious, the WP:OFFICE rule is only used in case of actual problems, and the Foundation handles them as expeditiously as they possibly can. I expect everyone will piss and moan, but removing a WP:OFFICE tag is a really really dickish thing to do. So please don't. - d.

At 7:28 PM, I wrote:

Is there any particular reason you're putting this on the mailing list?

At 8:17 PM, Ryan Delaney  wrote:

Because he wants to see if you really will oppose or challenge absolutely anything anyone does, ever.

Experiment over.

Ryan

From Wikipedia-L, Mar 8, 2007 6:53 AM

Andre Engels  wrote: SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!! As if answering to your pet peeves would solve all problems in the fucking Wikipedia!!!