User talk:Lokie Dokie


 * Why would I get blocked for stating that there is no appeal process for ITN entries that were so poorly written up that they were discussed then closed as "No consensus"? What policy did I violate by stating that?  Such an odd suggestion.  the panda ₯’  15:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Because it's not true? The thing you said I mean, which if you forgot, was the simple statement of a fact "When it's closed as no consensus, there's no appeal". But maybe you're right, I'm learning fast that making stuff up doesn't earn any of the insiders here a block. Outsiders complaining about facts, they're the only people who get blocked here. Anyway, you carry on with whatever it is you're doing today, there must be lots more people out there who haven't understood consensus even though they've read the page and it doesn't match what they saw with their own eyes, that you can advise about their lack of any kind of recourse. Lokie Dokie (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * So, show me where it's not true? ITN has no "appeal process" - nowhere.  So, I've not made anything up whatsoever  the panda ₯’  20:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you show me where it is true. You're the one making the claim. And funnily enough, you were the first person to even mention it, even though by that stage a few people had seen it, and presumably understood the intention was to appeal the decision. Can you explain their apparent failure to realise there is no appeal process, given that most, if not all of them, seem to be experts in the whole area? Lokie Dokie (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, you realize what you just asked me? You asked me to prove to you that something does not exist.  You cannot prove it does exist, but you're telling me "I'm making it up" ... and funny enough, claiming that I should be blocked for that.  Look, if I knew of an appeal place, I'd tell you.  But in the 8 years I've been here - about half of those as an admin - I've never seen such a thing as an appeal location for ITN.  By the time it takes to go through an appeal (that would take your typical 7-day discussion, I'm sure), it would be well outside of the news.  Remember that ITN is for rarities - Wikipedia is not intended to be a newspaper, and any article that makes ITN has to be in pretty good quality before the subject actually makes the news  the panda ₯’  21:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I asked you to prove you can't appeal an ITN decision, not whether you had ever seen it done or not. The appeal venue is obviously the talk page, or I suppose the talk page of the person who made the decision. I went to the talk page, and nobody said I couldn't appeal, they just rejected it out of hand. If I contravened the no appeal rule, they're certainly being very coy about it. And quite obviously it doesn't take 7 days to figure out if a decision was wrong - and in case you hadn't noticed, 4 days later and Gerry Adams is still under arrest, and it's still in the news, so even in this case, I'm sure if Wikipedia wasn't such a dysfunctional place, the veracity of the original decision could have been examined exhaustively by now. But no, you all seem to prefer to handle it quite differently - prefering to talk endless rubbish about sticks and horses and telling people they don't understand things, things that you're all not even prepared to answer a few simple questions about. Some collaboration. Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Asking the closing admin is NOT a formal appeal process - unlike WP:DRV which IS formal for deleted articles. So, I am here trying to be patient.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it simply seems to me that policy-based discussion led to no consensus to add the story you're passionate about to ITN.  That happens every single day.  I cannot fathom why you, the 9,000th person who has had this same thing happen are continuing to argue it.  There was not an error in reading consensus.  Look, why be snippy about something that happens all the time?  YOU think it belonged, and maybe it did (even moreso in hindsight) - but consensus said not to include it.  That happens thousands of times a day on articles across the project, why would ITN be any different?  the panda ₯’  22:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Who said it had to formal? Certainly not you. And as I've been saying consistently, and as you've been completely ignoring consistently - I've looked at what is supposed to happen when you judge consensus, and I've looked at that discussion, and I come up with a different outcome. You can either absorb the meaning of that sentence and respond in a way most ordinary people would, or you can just keep doing this ... whatever it is. I don't know what the 9,000 figure is supposed to represent, but if it's the amount of people you leave baffled every day at how you make decisions here, it's probably about accurate if this is all you do when people have complaints/queries/questions. I've seen more efficiency and responsiveness in government departments. Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, so you had a disagreement with how someone else read consensus. So, run for Admin, let them judge your ability to read consensus based on the whackload of policies and guidelines that need to be taken into account.  I've read the discussion to, and consensus was obvious - and sadly not the way you thought it was  the panda ₯’  22:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh how I wish I had even got as far as having a disagreement about how that consensus was read. Here's what actually happened - the ruling was made, I posted a complaint about it at Talk:In The News, and it was immediately shut down by Rambling Man. A disagreement usually involves someone reading what you have to say, responding to it, maybe you repeat that cycle a coouple of times, and then you come to a conclusion. It's almost like the way consensus is supposed to work on Wikipedia, according to the written rule book anyway. Funny eh? I obviously wouldn't be made an admin here, because I read that pase, so I still think consensus involves ignoring people who don't know what they're talking about - those who just make stuff up, if not tell outright lies, just to get what they want. Take Rambling Man - he clearly wants this not to be seen as a news story, so he adjusts his comments accordingly. Same for Ritchie - he clearly wants people to think BLPCRIME says don't post it, so he just said that's what it says. If I were an admin, I'd ignore both of them in my assessmenet of the consensus, and thus conclude the only people talkking any sense were those who wanted it posted. But obviously, that's not the Wikipedia way. I get it. You read the discussion, and you came up with the Wikipedia version of consensus. Well done you. You work the same way as other Wikipedia insiders. How utterly unsurprising. Still no explanation of why I am wrong, still no attempt at all to address my complaint. Still just more of the same, really. Meanwhile, in the real world, it's still a news story, it's still not a BLP violation to put it on the front page, and the things said in that discussion to pretend otherwise are still largely false. Lokie Dokie (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The truth, according to Wikipedia
The following events tool place on 2 May 2014
 * 2pm - Rambling Man - Gerry Adams arrest is already old news, eclipsed by Max clifford etc.
 * 6.30pm - Ritchie333 - coverage of the Adams arrest has been tabloid in nature (at the same time as he insisted BLPCRIME says don't put this on the front page)
 * 9pm - the police are granted a further 48 hours of detention - sparking an online BBC News story of 30+ paragraphs
 * ~10.15pm - Lokie Dokie is listening to the Stephen Nolan show on Radio 5 Live, in which there is extended discussion about how Sinn Fein are reviewing on an hourly basis what the ongoing detention of Adams means for their support for the PSNI, and accordingly, the risks to the peace process. Once finished, the show moves onto the other news of the day - Max Clifford

I will not forget, even if others may already have done so. Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above has absolutely nothing to do with "truth according to Wikipedia". After all, we don't report the truth  the panda ₯’  22:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a truthful recounting of a day in the life of Wikipedia. It happened, I documented it here. I reported it, if you will. Lokie Dokie (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you agree with it or not...
...everybody but you pointed out that you were being disruptive in your refusal to accept consensus, and you wound up being blocked for it - and the first thing you do after the block expires is resume your refusal to accept consensus. In addition, your user page is a violation of WP:POLEMIC. Please, move on. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You need a new pair of glasses - that section is about whether or not ITN has an appeals process. But thanks for dropping by. Any time you want to tell me what you think I'm doing, you're more than welcome. Wikipedia - it's all about the collaboration! Lokie Dokie (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Predicating your entire unblock on the mistaken belief that we believe we're a newspaper of some type? You've already been shown WP:NOTNEWS - yet you seem to have believed we were, all the way through this thing.  the panda ₯’  19:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to get it now. If NOTHERE is the page that lists all the signs someone is not a good little Wikipedian, then somewhere there must be a page called HERE. And top of that list must be 'ability to completely misrepresent what another person says'. Because that's all anyone here seems to do - you, Bushranger, Rambling Man, 331dot, etc. I say X, you claim I said Y. Over and over and over. The only purpose of this seems to me to manouver the other person into a corner, so that someone like Black Kite can eliminate them. Sort of like an immune system. In the real world, most intelligent people will quite easily be able to see what my unblock request is predicated upon, which is this false accusation of sock puppetry. On Wikipedia, that's not how it goes - simply reading and responding is just too difficult for you. And if you don't think you're a newspaper, why not tell the people who seem to spend their entire day here deciding what should and should not go on the "In the News" section of the front page. Based largely on .... if it's in the news. Better yet, why not explain it to Rambling Man, as he seems to think there's no longer any need to worry about whether or not the decision not to put the news of the Adams arrest on the front page was badly handled, because it's no longer in the news (even though, as a point of fact, it is). That's kind of a strange way to act, if you're not trying to be a newspaper. It's in his biography too, because I'm not stupid and I do know this is an encyclopedia - so why not tell Ritchie about that while you're at it, as he seems to think your "strongly enforced" BLPCRIME policy says it shouldn't be. But as we keep seeing, telling you about things that are patently going wrong on Wikipedia is pointless - you don't want to know. You just want to eliminate the foreign body who is disturbing the delicate balance with all his words and stuff. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You prefer to have people like HiLo48 here. Claims to be a school teacher, but if he is, he's either on the world's longest sabbatical, or he's editting while at school, or he's just a fantasist. Is he one of the ones who lectured me about civility? The same guy who has an entire section on that Administrators board complaining about his civility? Yes, you keep people like him here. Why? I just looked up what he said to oppose the Adams story - "Innocent until proven guilty". Relevance to whether the news of his arrest can go on the front page? Absolutely none. Presumably he meant to refer to BLPCRIMe like Ritchie, and presumably he would have also refused to explain why that page doesn't say anything about this issue. Did his opinion count in the vote? Who knows - Rambling Man doesn't tolerate any such analysis going on (and obviously, doing so violates your made up 'no appeals' rule too). Yes, you're all real suited to whatever it is you do here, and I'm the one who's not. I'm the insane one. Right. Maybe in the future, you should update your various rules pages to accurately reflect what actually goes on, so people like me aren't fooled into thinking they're what you people actually work to. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The rules are extremely consistent. You just somehow forgot that WP:CONSENSUS trumps all on this project.  Once you figure that out, you'll kick yourself ... and probably call yourself names.  Everything here could have been solved if you had realized what WP:CONSENSUS meant before making a single solitary edit.  None of the other "rules" even came into play - you seemed to feel you could over-ride WP:CONSENSUS, and you cannot - no matter what bull-in-a-china-shop method you try.  Everything you have done has been an attempt to over-ride WP:CONSENSUS, and eventually WP:NOTHERE comes into play.  After all, if you cannot accept the primary pillar on Wikipedia, the rest isn't going to sink in either.  So, until you learn about WP:CONSENSUS, I have no need to be back - no matter how damned hard I've tried to help you, you're choosing to be unhelpable.  Good luck!   the panda ₯’  19:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You are so unbelievably tiresome. I will now tell you for the fifth? time - my complaint was about how that CONSENSUS was arrived at. Obviously nobody with any sense, or anything to offer a supposedly collaborative environment like Wikipedia, would ever think it's a good idea to respond to a complaint of that nature, by simply repeating to the other person that they don't understand consensus, again, and again, and again. You've been trying to help me? That's hilarious. I wouldn't trust you to help a rock roll down a hill - even a simple task like that would probably totally confuse you. Somehow you'd probably end up pushing it up the hill, while screaming at it that it doesn't understand gravity. You're an utter buffoon, you really are. I'm sure you get laughed at a lot in real life - if only just for this total failure of basic comprehension. But I guess that's why you're here - at least you can consider yourself normal on this website - you're buffoonery is not exactly an outlier amongst the user base I'm beginning to realise. Lokie Dokie (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * To illustrate your buffonery - it's clear to anyone that if you ignored all the people who opposed the posting of that story but didn't accurately reference a policy, or didn't give a truthful account of the real world espects of it like the legal issue or the press coverage, or didn't prove that the supposed precedent actually existed, the consensus, and the CONSENSUS, was clear. Not once, not once in your tiresome attempts to claim I'm the one who doesn't understand CONSENSUS, have you even bothered to even acknowledge this as the basic truth, or to try and come up with an argument as to why it's not. You just keep repeating the same tiresome nonsense. You're totally blind to everything anyone else writes - it's like you don't even see these words, even though they come out in black and white on your screen as sure as they do on mine. Or as it's otherwise known, you're a good Wikipedian. I'm the disruptive one here. I'm the one who has nothing to offer the Wikipedia way. Yes, I see it all so clearly now. Lokie Dokie (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This would have been the reply to Rambling Man
I'm posting this here because I was writing it at the same time Black Kite was applying the results of his guesswork to block me. Rather than waste it, let's put it here, and see if he has anything to say to it. I'm guessing no - his preferred way of dealing things from the outset has been to make them go away, and now that's been acheived (assuming sense doesn't prevail), he'll concern himself with this issue no more. It's one way to win an argument I suppose.

Step 1 requires you to reverse your smackdown above, which you presumably won't do. Step 2 is only required if Step 1 fails. So we appear to be in a Rambling Man created logic paradox now. Gerry Adams is not my pet story, it's what the whole world's respectable media outlets have been discussing all week, without anyone accusing them of violating whatever the real world equivalent of BLP is. It's a shame you don't want Wikipedia to be a part of that, now or in the future, for reasons that ranged for simple misinformation, to downright lies. It's also strange how you seem to think even more reporting of it is evidence it's "less of a story", surely if it was less of a story, there wouldn't now be a whole new fresh round of reporting, analysis and comment. But of course, according to Wikipedia there isn't, because not even the news of the arrest was news, so how could the following four days of news about the detention, and now this news about the release, be news either? No, once you've made that mistake, obviously you've got to stick by it, otherwise you look even more ridiculous. Lokie Dokie (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)