From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aside from the dif about John Wayne Gacy where I don't see why having the category makes a lot of sense, I endorse this as reasonable and accurate. JoshuaZ 21:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I think it helps show a pattern of behavior. --- J.S ( t| c) 21:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

wow how cute I have a stalker. Devilmaycares 03:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Okay, but why a RfC? — 12.72.72.175 09:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
A few reasons. 1. It's the first step in dispute resolution. My hope is that Devil will fix his/her own behavior as a result of the attention here. 2. I'd like outside eyes to verify that I'm not crazy. 3. Assuming I'm not crazy, perhaps with greater scrutiny Devil won't get away with his behavior any more. 4. I'm not really sure of a better way to get the ball rolling. WP:ANI isn't relay for this kind of complaint. I'm totally open to other suggestions on what to do, but I feel it has been going on long enough. --- J.S ( t| c) 18:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Uhm, don't get too emotionally involved in Wikipedia. It is, ultimately, a BBS. — 12.72.69.106 18:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
No worries, it's not unhealthy to care about something. :) --- J.S ( t| c) 19:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Note the edit summary on this change to the article on Brian Flemming. It was in response to an edit with a summary that noted that the matter under dispute had been discussed both on the Talk page for the article and (in greater depth) on his own Talk page. (He has chosen not to participate in such discussion.) More generally, skim the list of his edit summaries. — 75.18.113.152 06:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Incivility: Tells an editor to FOAD. — 12.72.72.175 15:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Looks like that was done by an anon editor... do you have any evidence it's Devil? --- J.S ( t| c) 18:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes. Devilmaycares picked-up patterns already established by this anon editor, including (but not restricted to) which edits he makes to the McVeigh article and to the article on Brian Flemming. It's pretty easy to find articles edited both as/by that anon and as/by Devilmaycares, compare the edits, and see that it's the same guy. (I'm not objecting to the fact that he switches per se; the point is that he's incivil and POV pushing, sometimes to a point that even admins admit is vandalism.) — 12.72.69.106 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Devilmaycares has created “[[Category:LGBT criminals]]”, and has included criminals whose criminality isn't peculiarly linked to their being LGBT. Part of his POV-pushing has involved such gay-bashing. — 12.72.72.175 11:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I did notice that too, but I wasn't confident I knew enough about the issue and the history of the cat. If you'd like to summarise the history I'd appreciate it. --- J.S ( t| c) 16:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Here are the facts of the category as I know them:
(I don't know how many other such categorizations may have been made but later deleted.) His edit summaries never note the significance of the criminal's sexuality to criminality, which in some cases is at best far from clear. Nor does Devilmaycares seem interested in categorizing straight criminals as such. — 12.72.69.106 17:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
It does seem odd... some of the inclusions atleast. I wonder if the cat would survive a CFD? --- J.S ( t| c) 19:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
We shall see.12.72.70.76 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Deleted.12.72.70.76 21:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved into candidate section

Hi, I've moved this RfC into the candidate section, because it would appear that it has only been certified by 1 user. Addhoc 13:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aside from the dif about John Wayne Gacy where I don't see why having the category makes a lot of sense, I endorse this as reasonable and accurate. JoshuaZ 21:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I think it helps show a pattern of behavior. --- J.S ( t| c) 21:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

wow how cute I have a stalker. Devilmaycares 03:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Okay, but why a RfC? — 12.72.72.175 09:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
A few reasons. 1. It's the first step in dispute resolution. My hope is that Devil will fix his/her own behavior as a result of the attention here. 2. I'd like outside eyes to verify that I'm not crazy. 3. Assuming I'm not crazy, perhaps with greater scrutiny Devil won't get away with his behavior any more. 4. I'm not really sure of a better way to get the ball rolling. WP:ANI isn't relay for this kind of complaint. I'm totally open to other suggestions on what to do, but I feel it has been going on long enough. --- J.S ( t| c) 18:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Uhm, don't get too emotionally involved in Wikipedia. It is, ultimately, a BBS. — 12.72.69.106 18:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
No worries, it's not unhealthy to care about something. :) --- J.S ( t| c) 19:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Note the edit summary on this change to the article on Brian Flemming. It was in response to an edit with a summary that noted that the matter under dispute had been discussed both on the Talk page for the article and (in greater depth) on his own Talk page. (He has chosen not to participate in such discussion.) More generally, skim the list of his edit summaries. — 75.18.113.152 06:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Incivility: Tells an editor to FOAD. — 12.72.72.175 15:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Looks like that was done by an anon editor... do you have any evidence it's Devil? --- J.S ( t| c) 18:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes. Devilmaycares picked-up patterns already established by this anon editor, including (but not restricted to) which edits he makes to the McVeigh article and to the article on Brian Flemming. It's pretty easy to find articles edited both as/by that anon and as/by Devilmaycares, compare the edits, and see that it's the same guy. (I'm not objecting to the fact that he switches per se; the point is that he's incivil and POV pushing, sometimes to a point that even admins admit is vandalism.) — 12.72.69.106 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Devilmaycares has created “[[Category:LGBT criminals]]”, and has included criminals whose criminality isn't peculiarly linked to their being LGBT. Part of his POV-pushing has involved such gay-bashing. — 12.72.72.175 11:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I did notice that too, but I wasn't confident I knew enough about the issue and the history of the cat. If you'd like to summarise the history I'd appreciate it. --- J.S ( t| c) 16:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Here are the facts of the category as I know them:
(I don't know how many other such categorizations may have been made but later deleted.) His edit summaries never note the significance of the criminal's sexuality to criminality, which in some cases is at best far from clear. Nor does Devilmaycares seem interested in categorizing straight criminals as such. — 12.72.69.106 17:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
It does seem odd... some of the inclusions atleast. I wonder if the cat would survive a CFD? --- J.S ( t| c) 19:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
We shall see.12.72.70.76 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Deleted.12.72.70.76 21:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved into candidate section

Hi, I've moved this RfC into the candidate section, because it would appear that it has only been certified by 1 user. Addhoc 13:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook