User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2010/October

See
Here mark nutley (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My Name
Call me Mark, or use my full name, please don`t use my surname only. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi you were right about the cussing and i removed it, but it was getting very tedious having to say the same thing over and over because TFD was being, well you know. BTW with regards to my name 50px This is not me :o) Lets stick to Mark, hows that suit you :o) mark  (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there AndyTheGrump, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:AndyTheGrump. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism
Please, do not remove Justus' post. Such action would be justified only if you were an uninvolved editor.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus at ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threat
Please remove this, legal threats are a blockable offence. And unless your RL name is andy the grump then no liable can have occoured :) mark (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If I were you, I would withdraw that legal threat, especially seeing as it's kinda pointless to threaten to sue someone over a personal attack. Just don't worry about the comment, after all, you do edit under a pseudonym, and it's not like people can easily connect that to who you are in real life. Even if they do, it's obviously bad faith, and holds so little water that I don't think people would even believe it. Ks0stm  If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 17:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying a statement is libelous is not the same thing as saying that one intends to file suit, just as saying that remarks are hateful does not mean that one intends to prosecute under hate crime legislation. However Andy the Grump should avoid use of that word and instead use the term personal attack.  TFD (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:No legal threats: "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended.... Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved. For example, a user might assert another editor's comments are "defamatory" because they are unaware of certain policies (such as harassment, personal attacks, incivility, etc.) and require assistance in dealing with such comments." (my emphasis) TFD (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, the legal threat was "I am aware that Wikipedia policy is to discourage recourse to legal measures, but given the grossly offensive nature of this statement, I see that I have little choice." I believe that was what the block was for.  Ks0stm  If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 17:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what it was for. Though calling someone "pro-terrorist" isn't exactly civil either. Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 17:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to concede that it was not wise to make such a statement. Whereas the Justus' numerous posts are just personal attacks and ''perceived legal threats, the last Andy's post was almost unequivocal legal threat. However, taking into account that the Justus' attacks were directed at Andy and myself in the same extent, and whereas I personally don't think Justus "left me no choice", the last Andy's post is a result of the lack of experience. In my opinion, he should retract this statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Access Denied. Whereas calling someone "pro-terrorist" isn't exactly civil, the same action made repeatedly is a perceived legal threat.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but given that Andy only has 230 edits he might not be fully aware of the implications of the NLT policy. Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 17:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes Andy must remove that comment and follow the advice provided in the link which advises to contact the information team at info-enwikimedia.org, and then be unblocked. TFD (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A simple "I have no intent of pursuing any litigation." would be sufficient. Toddst1 (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I could have thought a little more before posting what I did, and I should probably have looked atWP:LEGAL more closely. I cannot see a great deal of point in making hypothetical statements about future intent, though if it helps, I'm perfectly willing to state unequivocally that at no time was the pursuit of litigation my objective - I was reacting to a grave personal attack which seemed to imply illegality on my part. Of course, statements made by JM are removed, and action is taken against him to ensure they are not repeated, the issue will be closed.

If JM will not withdraw his remarks voluntarily, it will presumably be possible for this issue to be settled by normal Wikipedia procedures, however I'm unsure as to how a complaint about JM's comments about me needs to be initiated. Do I have to make the complaint in person, or can a third party proceed? If this is possible, it might be the best course of action in any case - the facts seem clear enough, and a third party would probably deal with the issue in a more calm and reflective manner.

For the moment I'm in no mood to contribute anything useful to Wikipedia, so the block is of no great consequence, and whether I'd even wish to contribute further to the Wikipedia project will very likely depend on how this issue is resolved. I think my most sensible option is to wait at least until Justus Maximus responds. Perhaps he will see the error of his ways, and we can all get back to doing more useful things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I already pointed out, repeated accusations in advocacy of terrorism are de facto accusations in a criminal act, that can be considered as perceived legal threats. Therefore, you could simply report Justus Maximus behaviour (it will be more problematic to do now, after you've made your hasty claim). Please, note that the only thing that protects him from sanctions is his status of a newbie. His behaviour is unproductive and uncivil, and, upon some time will inevitably lead to his block.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your contributions are valued and I want you back. You are free to sue whomever you wish, but cannot discuss that here.  If you feel that you have been libelled you may complain with an e-mail to Wikipedia.  No one is asking you not to sue, just asking you not to discuss it here.  Just say that you will no longer discuss legal proceedings.  TFD (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with TFD...despite our disagreement over Access Denied's username, I think of you as a highly valuable contributor of the kind that the wiki needs more of. You make good contributions, and I would hate to see you leave for any reason, especially something as easy to fix as the present situation. I have left JM a final warning about personal attacks, and if he even once more calls you or any other editor a terrorism advocate or anything similar, he will (most probably) be blocked for it. Ks0stm  If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 02:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, guys. I've got no problem stating that I won't further discuss on Wikipedia any legal action against Justus Maximus over what he wrote about me (or such action against anyone else - not that this could ever have been an issue). I can't 'unsay' what I've already said in any case, and presumably JM has seen what I wrote, so I've got no real objection to now deleting my comments regarding legal action. If this still sounds 'equivocal' it is only because I'm unsure of the legal consequences of withdrawing a complaint to someone over a personal attack that implied possible criminality on my part. Based on this uncertainty, I cannot simply withdraw my objections to being called 'pro-terrorist' without it at least potentially appearing to be an acceptance of the comment, and I'm not prepared to do that. As I've already said, normal Wikipedia arbitration procedures should be sufficient to resolve the issue, and that appears now to be the best route to go down though.


 * Apologies to all who've had to get involved in this mess. I'm sure you all could have found better things to do with your time. I know I could... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would now, if I were you, either make an unblock request, or if you want I can post to the ANI thread your withdrawal of the legal threat (and just because you withdraw a "threat of legal action" doesn't mean you approve of the being called pro-terrorist, in fact, you could be wholeheartedly and completely opposed and still withdraw such a comment), however the ANI route might be slower. Ks0stm  If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 02:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would unblock now if the response were adequate, but it isn't. Andy needs to withdraw the threat of legal action, not just promise not to talk about it any more.  That doesn't mean promising not to take legal action (which would be a meaningless promise anyway), it just means saying "I withdraw the threat I made about taking legal action". Looie496 (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Looie496, but stating that one has the right to take legal action isn't 'a threat'. It is a statement of fact, and a statement I've already made - I can't 'withdraw' a statement about my rights. I'm not prepared to engage in pointless debates over semantics, however. If Wikipedia chooses to withhold editing rights to people who won't make 'a meaningless promise' then I can't see much point in playing along. I'm not in the habit of making statements just to satisfy arbitrary rules. I'd suggest you read WP:LEGAL yourself, and decide why exactly you consider such a promise necessary.
 * On another point, just a quick question. Have I used the template correctly in making the 'unblock request' above? I'm not entirely sure I've understood the instructions, though it seems to have done something sensible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It now appears that Floquenbeam has unblocked me (thanks :) ), so perhaps we can all get back to something more constructive - I'll remove the relevant comment I made to JM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Andy - its one of the big no-nos in WIkipedia and there are reasons for it.  Much better to raise the accusation at ANI and ask for redress.  I'd also move that latest posting up to the original section if I were you.   Very happy to help out at any time if you want, it takes time to get used to wikipedia (having suffered a three month ban from editing the Ayn Rand page while I learnt the ropes).  -- Snowded  TALK  14:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

My Response
Please see my response of 12:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC) to your last post on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, section "Return to Justus Maximus."

As I said, retract your offensive remarks and I'll retract mine as per my above statement.

Regards,

Justus Maximus (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Moran
I had added a Washington Post blog link which was a liberal website identifying the issue as well. So, it's not just conservative websites that note it's existence. --Habap (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am curious why conservative websites would not be reliable sources. Shouldn't the focus be on whether they are reliable rather than their political affilation? Moran's own website mentions the issue here. So, I imagine that if the paragraph is re-worded and references that website, it would count as being reliably sourced? --Habap (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Having seen the response on Moran's website, I'm inclined to conclude that neither website is likely to be particularly reliable on their own, or at least unlikely to be neutral. More to the point, if this has bean reported in the mainstream media, why is it necessary to refer to websites at all? Wikipedia policy is to avoid both blogs and press releases, and concentrate on more widely-read and reviewed sources. One expects spin from both sides in a political campaign, but other sources may at least attempt to look at both sides of the story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've re-written the paragraph at Talk:Jim Moran, dropping the Murray challenge sentence (which is just grand-standing), replacing it with a sentence indicating missing context and linking to Moran's press release. Since it's not in the MSM, it certainly won't be notable after the election, but I think if we don't mention it at all, conservatives will continue to add it, edit-warring with liberals who remove it. I think the proposed wording is more balanced. Of course, since I've never edited political articles in the run-up to an election before, I have no idea if this will work at avoiding the warring. --Habap (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've posted my suggestion for amendment at Talk:Jim Moran too. As for avoiding an edit war, I think this rather depends on whether the combatants are engaged elsewhere, and on how close the result of this particular contest is likely to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One website had the race very close (32.3%-29.7%, 30.5% undecided), but others (and my expectation) had it being a 13% Moran advantage, so it's probably not close at all. --Habap (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless the one website has got it right, I expect the Wikipedia spin-doctors are all at work elsewhere, then. Personally, I think it is a shame how modern technology means that every word a candidate comes out with is picked over endlessly. It leaves little time for real political debate, and probably rules out a few otherwise excellent, if gaffe-prone candidates. Imagine how the modern media would handle this sort of exchange:


 * ''"Battling Bessie Braddock", fiery Labour MP from Liverpool once said to Churchill, "Winston, you're drunk!" To which he replied, "Bessie, you're ugly, but in the morning I shall be sober."
 * Nancy Astor once said to Churchill, "If I was your wife I'd poison your coffee!" He replied, "If I was your husband I'd drink it.".
 * http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0161476/bio
 * AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey
I'm not sure how to say this, but I am thinking about offering to mentor you. If you have any objections, that's fine, but I am always here to answer any question. I think you have a lot of potential to be an excellent editor. I feel mentoring helps with the process. Or, a person could be a lone wolf like me. :) Both ways are fine. The choice is up to you. --Talk ToMe cintelati  01:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You will be similar to my current mentoree . Nothing new to me. (Working out of a hole :) My first piece of advice is that if you like to experiment Create a sandbox very helpful actually sometimes