User talk:Mmeiser

If you have a note for me regarding edits please put it here. Otherwise feel free to email me at "wikipedia at mmeiser.com"

Hey man, nice work with Social Media page. It is a great start, and something that needs to be Wiki'd badly.

Request for blocking of user Pdelongchamp on vlogging article

Submitted to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard posted here for documentations purposes... if you care to comment or vote on a ban post there... if you want to comment off the recorde feel free to respond here on my talk page.

--beging post -- Request assistance, advisement, and possible blocking of user Pdelongchamp from editing videoblogging article.

Charges are long term "delete trolling" (aka. "blanking vandalism"), "retributive editing" and threatening other users with blocking.

1) User deletes every contribution at least once.

Over the last year to two years user has attempted to have article deleted outright and upon failure has deleted every single one of thousands upon thousands of edits to the article at least once and more often then not multiple times despite attempts to appease him with citations and edits. This despite only one or two original contributions himself.

Delete's are almost always automatic, occurring within hour or days of contribution allowing no time or room for response, contribution or improvement by other contributors. User's deletes hence dominate article, disrupting activity on said wikipedia article and prohibiting other willing users from collaborating.

User cites frivolous reasons unworthy of automatic and outright deletion like "original research" and "needs citations" on these deletes despite repeated attempts to work with him by members of the community over the long term and repeated citations of wikipedia's editing policy, particularly the section "perfection is not required" and information contained therein on proper deletion procedure.

Please consider this emphasis. User has deleted EVERY contribution at least once if not multiple times. This is not an exaggeration. Article has been withered down by user to a stub of less than 500 words multiple times in the last two years and all contributions (no matter how obvious the value may seem or how obvious the good intentions of the contributor) have to be submitted multiple times and/or by multiple contributors and often debated before said user will admit them to the article, if said user 'allows' them at all, and often only to delete them months later.

Most recently the user deleted over 90% of the article and is currently involved in an edit war with multiple members of the community who have attempted to work with him to re-establish the article.

2) Retributive editing

User has edited other articles or attempted to have them deleted as a form of retribution.

In less than 10 edits and a relative number of minutes the user went from reverting a contribution to the videoblogging article to going through that users past contributions deleted edits and attempted to have 3 different articles deleted. Actually succeeding on one count.

This was admittedly my edit and my contributions, but they were others articles of which I had only made minor contributions and having nothing to do with the videoblogging article. It's as plain a case of retribution as I can find and shows alarming spitefulness and willingness to jeopardize a great amount by others and on other topics that are in no way connected to the videoblgging article.

(note re: "retributive editing" - I could find no other language for it so you'll have to pardon the terminology. Have been unable to find any other information on it, if you know it by another name or have any documentation on subject please respond.)

3) User has threatened users with blocking.

User has repeatedly threatened me with blocking in editing disputes despite being advised disputes are not a block-able offense.

Summation

Despite what can be considered nothing less than tremendous patience over the past two years because of the above and other actions I believe the community no longer assumes this user is editing in good faith. I believe I can speak on behalf of the community on this matter but am prepared to back it up with dozens if not hundreds of signatures of community members by whatever method you deem necessary. I also believe wether blocking be in order, or another form of action that the community would like a chance to send this user a message with their consensus on the matter to restore faith in the wikipedia editing process.

I believe the user in question wishes the article deleted or at the least he is trolling the community in an attempt for either attention or simply to frustrate and waste the time / energy of the community. He has succeeded in the last two years in driving off many well intentioned long term editors, and in bringing the evolution of the article to a complete standstill.

User is basically holding an entire community of would be contributors hostage with a delete button.

I believe there is more than enough evidence (2 years worth) and community consensus, I can virtually ensure 100's of signatures if there is a procedure for requesting a block.

Will be happy to cite in wikipedia history well documented proof of all above points at your request.

Please advise on how to proceed.

Thank you, -Michael Meiser --mmeiser 07:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video blog

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Pdelongchamp 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Thank you I've been on wikipedia for 3+ years now, but better welcome to you too... what's also not welcome is simply deleting every addition to a page by every single person for two straight years without making a single contribution yourself... which is exactly what you are doing... the term I believe is either "delete mongering" or simply "trolling" I suggest you read up on it and start collaborating and working with people instead of simply acting like your some hight priest of wikipedia. --mmeiser 17:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Pdelongchamp 18:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content is considered vandalism and may result in a block. Pdelongchamp 17:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedalongchamp... stop deleting everything from the videoblogging page indescriminently... and even more importantly stop leaving threatening comments on my user page. --mmeiser 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Pdelongchamp 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pdelongchamp... disputions of content are not a reasonable reason for blocking... your threatening to block me however may well be a blockable offense... as such I have sought the attention of an administrator and am requesting moderation, during which time you also may not block me. Your abuse against editors and would be editors of the videoblogging page have gone on long enough... I will be seeking the stiffest penalty I can against you. Your delete mongering / trolling of the videoblogging article with thousands of thousands of deletes, your inability to collaborate with anyone at all, and failure to make a single positive contribution to the article as demonstrated in the history of the article should be more than enough. You have made over half the edits... and not a single one of them is a contribution, they are ALL deletes. The history of the talk page itself also illustrates this domineering of the vlog article as every single issue has been Pdelongchamp against everyone else. If you would now attempt to submit the article for deletion one more time based on it's lacking of substatiation, a situation you created... as you've already done once before my evidence will be complete. I've also noted to administrators you've vindictively gone after other articles I've contributed to. I'm not a vindictive person... but you've left me no choice but to go on the offensive. For documentation purposes I'm posting this to my talk page as well as yours. --mmeiser 04:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, thanks for the message. I took Pdelongchamp's seemingly innocent comment at WP:RFF at face value, as it read like someone who was on the receiving end of an edit war. I wish that I had checked the article's history first! It is very clear from those diffs that she is not innocent in this long-running edit war, deleting material that may be sufficiently valid to be kept. At least valid enough not to be reverted on sight, but improved instead.

However, she is right to say on the talk page that every addition must be sourced. I can see that you know that already, but I think that it is important to give absolutely no reason for other editors to question or remove one's contributions, particularly when an editor has shown a propensity to do so. Make the material bomb proof and no-one can reasonably remove it.

It seems to me that your intentions for this article are genuine and positive. What you must be careful of, as I'm sure you know, is 3RR (the letter and spirit alike). If it was only an edit war, I would suggest that WP:RFC or even just WP:3O would probably be enough, but with the unwarranted vandalism warnings and block threat, I think you should prepare a case for admin intervention and raise the possibility of that with an experienced admin. Gather all the evidence, both for an against each party, very carefully; if you have vio'd 3RR in your efforts to deal with it, mention it and explain it, which will minimise any weakening of your case. I think your case is fairly strong, but you might want to seek further advice at WP:ANI.

I might make some uncontroversial positive edits to the article in the meantime and see what happens. Keep an eye on it and consider following that up with some of the strongest parts of your intended additions, with solid reliable 3rd party sources, properly ref'd and carefully written. Consider reworking them substantially if necessary. The more solid your contributions are, the more solid your case - whether RFC, ANI, or AFD - will be.

Adrian M. H. 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I have just given Video blog some minor edits, including some hidden comments to assist editors. At this time, I have not tagged any individual statements that need citations, but there a couple that do, namely the growth in popularity of Yahoo's service and the use of the acronym vblog. What I would like to propose, if you're interested, is that you create or copy/paste your preferred version of the article to a sub-page of your user space where you can take your time getting it 100% right, with good sources/refs for every fact. Then maybe invite Pdelongchamp to view it and try to meet in the middle. That might be easier than going to RFC right now, and you can keep that as an option. The thing with this situation is that, like a lot of disputes on Wikipedia, no-one is totally blameless. If you can find a way to get your version, or something close to it, accepted by making it 100% up to standard, that's got to be the best way. Let me know how things go, and I'll be around for advice/assistance if you need it. Regards, Adrian M. H. 20:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I'm glad you're keen on the user space idea; it does work well for collaborative efforts when you want to keep it in a stable form. Once, you have a decent draft up together, I recommend that you put it forward for review by independent third parties and see how it goes. If the feedback is positive, then you'd be well placed to use your material in the article itself. See WP:RFF and also WP:PR (which, I have just noticed, has yet another of Wikipedia's backlogs!) Regards, Adrian M. H. 13:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfunding

I submitted Crowdfunding for deletion. See the discussion here.

Video blog

You have challenged me to point out instances where you have been rude.

You use absolutes. You should avoid saying things like "never", "always". They're rude and often inaccurate. For example:
- "your ongoing deletion of ALL attempts at contribution"
- "all you have done"
- "no contributions were made"
- "I am absolutely not"
- "You have in fact turned away 100% of all contributor"
- "have made no contributions ever"
- "I'm the last person trying to contribute to this article you have not driven off"
You use excessive markup: It undermines a reasoned argument with the appearance of force. You should avoid using CAPITAL LETTERS, which are considered SHOUTING, and RANTING!!!!! For example:
- "ALL attempts at contribution"
- "this IS and has constantly been"
- "The ONLY difference"
You are not concise: If your post is longer than 100 words consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood. They come off as rants and appear rude.
You use personal attacks. Rather than arguing the edit, you argue the editor. For example:
- "in response to your argument that I'm "sidetracking the conversation" I am absolutely not... your domimnance of this article have made you the central subject of this talk page.."
- Mmeiser, I asked you to discuss my summary edit points. You replied by making a personal attack. I asked you not to sidetrack the conversation and discuss my summary edit points. Once again, you replied by making a personal attack. In both cases, you did not discuss the reasons for which I made my edits and whether the reasoning was valid or not.

Can you understand why your posts seem rude? Pdelongchamp 19:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: When I use the term "ALL" when saying you have "deleted ALL contributions at least twice"... it's only because even though there have been thousands and thousands of contributions over the last two years to this article you HAVE deleted every single contribution at least twice. You have in fact tried to have the whole article deleted. This is not yelling, yelling would be whole sentences and paragraphs in CAPS... this is emphasis. Emphasis from someone who has wether you want to admit it or not the only person who has not completely lost patience with you and walked away.

I don't fault you for any particular point on the article, but all the same I will not defend point by point the worthiness of every single point for the 90% of the article you deleted. You've gone to far. I find fault that this is fundamentally not conducive to collaboration. While everyone else has lost patience and stopped contributing to the article all together I'm the only one who's had the patience to work with you this long. So you'll have to forgive me for being rude or condescending or any of your issues above. I think I've been more than patient enough.

One final note, you accuse me of "personal attacks"... you'll have to pardon me, I unforetunatly laughed out loud when I read this. Rude as it may be I couldn't help myself. Again, don't want to be rude or anything, but your history of contributions clearly shows that among other things you went through my history of contributions and in about seven obvious steps you attempted to delete several articles I contributed to and deleted several of my edits as well as others.

While this was a very personal and mean spirited attack on me you've deleted others hard work just to spite me. To say this is much more serious than simply "being rude" is to be polite. In fact it's all the politeness I can muster right now.

This means that in addition to "delete trolling" (as wikipedia defines it), you have more seriously hurt others and damaged other unrelated articles in acts of retribution, which is refered to on wikipedia as, "retributive editing".

The later is a particularly serious issue here on wikipedia as it shows a lack of good faith. Good faith is the the foundation of collaboration and therefore the foundation of wikipedia.

I could go further but you leave through your actions, (despite whatever words you, or I, chose to use) a well documented record of who you are and your character. I've chosen not to take stronger action because I'm trying not to escalate. I have tried, perhaps to a fault, to use discretion in dealing with you directly and to protect your identity and the worst of your actions from the community on wikipedia and within the vlogging space. However you are known to people throughout the community for you actions here and elsewhere. (Yes others have recognized the pattern.) I've been unsuccessful because they have serious reservation, to put it as politely as possible, as to your good faith and intentions and I can't unfortuneatly can't argue with them anymore.

I still hold some hope that there's a chance for some good to come of this of this. I hope you still want to see this wikipedia article evolve despite strong evidence to the contrary. However, you'll have to forgive me for these signs (rudeness or otherwise) of my patience running low. I will not hold my breath.

That said, I'm going to leave your delete's in place... now that there's nothing left of the article, not even enough for it to stand on you'll either be forced reconcile your actions and start contributing to it allow others to contribute to it and work with them, or to submit it for deletion, which if you do I'll be standing right there pointing to your record of actions to admins and others. The ball is now in your court.

I am no saint... maybe I'm to wordy, maybe I'm over expressive in my tone or language... maybe even rude... but your actions continue to speak for themselves regardles of what words you use to defend them.

Your actions cannot be erased, even if they could I've made sure make a record both here and with administrators, and eventually if you keep going down this path someone is going to take some action against you with wikipedia administrators. Use accounts have been banned for much less than what you've done, but perhaps they would just ban you temporarily, or maybe they'd block you from editing the vlogging article. Either way I have no doubt you'd find other ways to be abusive if you wanted to so. This is why I'm continuing with what patience I have left to appeal to your better judgement.

You must realize that you could be subjected to the same treatment as you're treating others and so I ask, what you would do about if it was you having all your and others contributions deleted on an article?

I ask this same question of myself... I think I could forgive someone for being rude as you say of me.

Even if they were to stop deleting all contributions could you forgive someone for deleting all contributions to an article for two years? What if they also attempted to delete your own hard work and that of others as a form of retribution on other articles?

I can only conclude that my being rude is not your problem. That it makes no difference how rude or nice I am. That I care enough to continue with this long term chirade hardly the problem at all. Sooner or later you'll have problems with enough other people on wikipedia, people that will not simply walk away as all others have... and eventually you'll have to conclude that the people opposing you are in fact are the people on your side because they care enough to debate the importance of said points your care about with you instead of dismissing them... and that you need to find a subtler, nicer, more collaborative methods then deleting and dismissing others edits as quickly as they attempt to add them. Perhaps in fact this has resulted from others behaving so disrespectful from your contribs the way you're now treating mine and others.

I'll admit I could have been much more subtle in my earlier debates with you as well. Oh well.

I'm not going to worry about it further. Do with the vlogging article as you will, I'll only oppose you with your own evidence of past actions if you attempt to have it completely deleted a second time, or the next time you delete some other persons honest contributions so readily. The web is an open place and I'm already working with others on many other community projects to document and define the space. The vlogging article is but a small piece of the picture. I had figured the wikipedia review process would help in refining it but you've given no others the chance to participate. How can you say that's not about you? It's you who've made it all about you.

Peace, Mike --mmeiser 03:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, no one would delete my contributions because they're always sourced. (in the end, Adrian didn't reinsert your content did he? he stated the same conditions as I have always stated. Everything must be properly sourced to be reintroduced into the article) It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp. Just take a look at the references section of the vlog article. More than half of them were inserted by me. You'll notice that I never removed the only properly sourced piece you've ever contributed to the article. (the steve jobs timeline) You'll notice that Steve Garfield contributed a source timeline event to the article as well and I didn't remove that either. Maybe you should try adding more of those. (properly sourced contributions) The reason I went into your contributions was because I wanted to make sure you weren't inserting original research into other articles. I merely nominated Crowdfunding for deletion, it's other editors that voted and felt the same as I did. That's why it got deleted. Pdelongchamp 15:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL is good, perhaps you prefer the term whatever. How many times did you delete the books before finally accepting them as part of the article, four, five, maybe 10 times? ...but of course you right, you must be right... 100% of the time you must be right, in fact you must never be wrong, because you've deleted everything in the page at least twice and how dare I contribute even the tiniest contrib without properly and thouroughly and perfectly sourcing it. You're right, you're the man... have fun editing the article by yourself... should be fun for you... I know it's going for me to whatch... watch it completely stagnate. Other than me not a single person has added something that met you're approval since you deleted Steve's edit multiple times. Wait... how long ago was that? Must be over a year, year and a half, two years? You've deleted how many contributions in the last two years, 1000, 2000 legitimate attempts at contribution and not a single one has met you're approval, like someone died and made you the authority anyway. You still 100% completely don't get it. One final time... *When you control every edit and act as the gatekeeper for the entire article, subjecting every edit to you're approval you are fundamentally wrong. That's fundamentally not collaboration, it's tyranny. It doesn't matter if you're points are correct about particular edits 50%, 80% or even 95% of the time, it's that that you leave NOONE else any room to collaborate that's the problem.* So... have fun with it, have fun working on other articles with people too, that you haven't accepted a single contribution from anyone besides steve garfield's edits in the last two years is a testimate to your wrong-headedness. Where do you aim to have the article in another two to four years... will it have 4 items in the timeline by that time instead of two.. perhaps you should delete that timeline alltogether since you can't call it timeline if it only has two items in it. Either way, i can see it as nothing but humor. You've made the videoblogging article your folley... it reflects you so perfectly. Sooner or later you'll learn how to play well with others. I just love that now that you've dug yourself a hole by turning the article into a stub that you have no choice but to either start allowing others to contribute or write it all yourself. Good luck with that. Just being "rude". I notice you keep ignoring adressing my charge of how when you've deleted 100% of all contributions over the last two years it could not be considered the very definition of "delete trolling", nor have you acknowleged your going through my contribs to other articles retributively editing even attempting to have whole articles deleted. Next to your actions I gladly wear the title of being rude toward you. It pales in comparison to your misdeads. You forgot to put "poster of unsourced material" and "he who refuses to point by point defend 90% of the article for the 15th time." I don't know how I live with myself. --mmeiser 19:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saved for documentation purposes

I've copied the following list of edits here merely for documentation purposes.

21:35, 10 April 2007 (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Talk:Culling&action=history" title="Talk:Culling">hist</a>) (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Talk:Culling&diff=prev&oldid=121782521" title="Talk:Culling">diff</a>) <a href="/wiki/Talk:Culling" title="Talk:Culling">Talk:Culling</a> (<a href="/wiki/Talk:Culling#Satanist_Groups_-_Reference.3F" title="Talk:Culling">→</a>Satanist Groups - Reference?)

21:33, 10 April 2007 (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Culling&action=history" title="Culling">hist</a>) (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Culling&diff=prev&oldid=121782118" title="Culling">diff</a>) <a href="/wiki/Culling" title="Culling">Culling</a> (rm unsourced statements) (top)

20:53, 10 April 2007 (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Seal_hunting&action=history" title="Seal hunting">hist</a>) (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Seal_hunting&diff=prev&oldid=121771784" title="Seal hunting">diff</a>) <a href="/wiki/Seal_hunting" title="Seal hunting">Seal hunting</a> (<a href="/wiki/Seal_hunting#Cruelty_to_animals" title="Seal hunting">→</a>Cruelty to animals - rm unsourced statement from Dr. Mary Richardson. Only reintroduce if properly sourced.)

19:02, 9 April 2007 (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_9&action=history" title="Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 9">hist</a>) (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_9&diff=prev&oldid=121483773" title="Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 9">diff</a>) <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_9" title="Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 9">Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 9</a> (Adding <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Photofeed" title="Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photofeed">Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photofeed</a>)

19:01, 9 April 2007 (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Photofeed&action=history" title="Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photofeed">hist</a>) (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Photofeed&diff=prev&oldid=121483547" title="Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photofeed">diff</a>) <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Photofeed" title="Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photofeed">Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photofeed</a> (Creating deletion discussion page for <a href="/wiki/Photofeed" title="Photofeed">Photofeed</a>)

18:59, 9 April 2007 (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Photofeed&action=history" title="Photofeed">hist</a>) (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Photofeed&diff=prev&oldid=121483101" title="Photofeed">diff</a>) <a href="/wiki/Photofeed" title="Photofeed">Photofeed</a> (nominated for deletion: see <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Photofeed" title="Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photofeed">Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photofeed</a>)

18:45, 9 April 2007 (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fantoft_stave_church&action=history" title="Fantoft stave church">hist</a>) (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Fantoft_stave_church&diff=prev&oldid=121479653" title="Fantoft stave church">diff</a>) <a href="/wiki/Fantoft_stave_church" title="Fantoft stave church">Fantoft stave church</a> (This article does not adequately cite its references or sources.)

18:42, 9 April 2007 (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Photofeed&action=history" title="Photofeed">hist</a>) (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Photofeed&diff=prev&oldid=121478575" title="Photofeed">diff</a>) m <a href="/wiki/Photofeed" title="Photofeed">Photofeed</a>

18:41, 9 April 2007 (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Social_media&action=history" title="Social media">hist</a>) (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Social_media&diff=prev&oldid=121478430" title="Social media">diff</a>) <a href="/wiki/Social_media" title="Social media">Social media</a> (This article does not adequately cite its references or sources.)

18:34, 9 April 2007 (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Photofeed&action=history" title="Photofeed">hist</a>) (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Photofeed&diff=prev&oldid=121476717" title="Photofeed">diff</a>) <a href="/wiki/Photofeed" title="Photofeed">Photofeed</a> (This section does not cite its references or sources.)

17:36, 9 April 2007 (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_9&action=history" title="Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 9">hist</a>) (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_9&diff=prev&oldid=121462439" title="Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 9">diff</a>) <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_9" title="Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 9">Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 9</a> (Adding <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowdfunding" title="Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdfunding">Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdfunding</a>)

17:33, 9 April 2007 (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowdfunding&action=history" title="Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdfunding">hist</a>) (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowdfunding&diff=prev&oldid=121461648" title="Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdfunding">diff</a>) <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowdfunding" title="Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdfunding">Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdfunding</a> (Creating deletion discussion page for <a href="/w/index.php?title=Crowdfunding&action=edit" class="new" title="Crowdfunding">Crowdfunding</a>)

15:57, 9 April 2007 (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&action=history" title="Video blog">hist</a>) (<a href="/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=prev&oldid=121444043" title="Video blog">diff</a>) <a href="/wiki/Video_blog" title="Video blog">Video blog</a> (<a href="/wiki/WP:UNDO" title="WP:UNDO">Undid</a> revision 121378802 by <a href="/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mmeiser" title="Special:Contributions/Mmeiser">Mmeiser</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:Mmeiser" title="User talk:Mmeiser">talk</a>))

Andreas' polite observations on the issue: http://www.solitude.dk/archives/20061028-2354/

Olive Branch

You asked me to explain how you've been rude because you seemed genuinely concerned and I tried to phrase my Rude Challenge 2007 comment as diplomatically as possible. In my bullet points, I quoted Wikipedia policies and sites on constructive arguments in the hopes of being NPOV. I wasn't trying to start something negative.

Let's work positively from now on and I hope that you accept my initial RC 2007 comments in good faith. Enjoy your weekend Mmeiser. Pdelongchamp 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Unfortuneatly Pdelongchamp, words are meaningless without action, which is why being rude has nothing to do with this. It's simply lame excuse on your part to discredit the only other contributor left to the article as you've driven everyone else off with your delete trolling and worse retributive editing (a case of which is documented above). An olive branch does not mean saying one thing and then continuing to do another. I've discussed this issue with you enough. Any further discussion is completely redundant and beside the point. There can be no olive branch until you stop deleting every single contribution from the video blogging article art start playing nice with others. It's that simple. In order to remove myself from the situation completely so you may no longer use me as an excuse and can prove you have some good intention and some ability to collaborate with others I'm going to stop editing the wikipedia article videoblog article for now at that location and may reserect it here under the protection of my user page to solicit feedback. What you do with the main article is now is up to you. It's currently a stub, a testament to the folly of your methods in working with others. If you want to improve it it's now up to you to start allowing the *imperfet* contributions of others or to simply do it yourself. I've documented this case thoroughly here and elsewhere and if you attempt to delete it, continue to treat others disrespectfully or attempt further form of retribution against other members of wikipedia who disagree with you I will simply continue to bear witness, document your behavior, and provide any information to any admin so they can be the judges. Peace, --mmeiser 10:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing to assume good faith. Pdelongchamp 19:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. What does that mean "failing to assume good faith". That doesn't even make sense. I can't respond to that, but can say this. I tried with what no one could contest was tremendous patience to work with you over TWO years on the vlog article, assuming in "good faith" that you wanted to improve the videoblogging page despite a history of deleting all contributions, even when you attempted to have the article deleted, and though you failed many would consider that attempt at deletion a very obvious sign you weren't editing in good faith and yet when all others walked away I still continued to try and work with you.

But then you went through my own past contributions on UNRLEATED articles deleting my edits and those of others and attempting to delete whole articles as well. In doing so you attempted to delete the contributions of dozens, even hundreds of other people, just to spite me. That's unconscionable. SO, yeah, I'm "failing to assume good faith". That's like saying I'm failing to continue trust you. I gave you trust when it was unearned, I gave you trust despite the odds... you took that trust, that dood fait and deleted it without a second thought.

You've proven you can't be trusted. Even if I assume the best, how can I assume good faith after your actions. If it wasn't that I was so enjoying the absurdity of our conversations I would have stopped responding to you a long time ago, because it's plain to see that there's no resolution here. Like all trolls the only way to difuse the situation is to just walk away, which I've done.... if you honestly feel the same way about me, that I'm somehow trolling me, then let me offer you the same advice as I myself am taking, just stop leaving comments on my talk page as I have done with yours. I've stopped editing the vlog article also... i've ceded you the contested ground... it's your's do somethign spectacular with it, if I was holding you back I'm not anymore.

The vlog article is all yours, prove me wrong about you, make something of it, anything. But if you think that I would continue to assume that you're anything less than that your an *sshole who thinks this is some sort of a game, and just wants attention, to attempt to waste my time and others, to feel you have some sort of power by abusing your power to use a delete button, then you're more convoluted then I thought.

What I assume is you said "you're failing to assume good faith", a statement that fails to make sense, as some sort of joke in an attempt to flaunt one of wikipedia's core guidelines. Rude or not, this is my talk page, I'm just expressing my opinion to let you know where you and I stand. I don't trust you, it's no longer important that I trust you because I'm not editing the vlog article, so the issue is for all purposes resolved for the time being, and we have no reason to discuss the matter further.

To put it even more bluntly... you don't need my "good faith" in you... go do your thing... I don't want anything to do with you. Live your life... do what you want to with the wikipedia article... prove me wrong... make it something great.

You seem to think this is about me, but it's about you, rather than field absurd he said / she said comments that won't resolve anything I'm removing myself completely from the picture so you can collaborate merrily on the videoblogging article as you may... you're doing such a great job... keep going. Prove that you do have the best interests of the article in mind. If you truely are editing in "good faith" then it'll all come out in time and you'll can prove me wrong. I'd be way, WAY to happy to be proven wrong on this point. Prove me wrong. Please, prove me wrong. Please god, if only as a sign of spite, let Pat prove me wrong by turning the wikipedia article into something more than the sad stub of an article that is a disgrace with a timeline with only two items.

If on the other hand you are who I think you are you'll continue to delete every single contribution wether posted with good intentions or not, or god willing you'll attempt to have it deleted again. That would be less pleasing then you actually proving me wrong, but at least in proving me right there will be some sort of definitive proof for wikipedia admins to take action on, not that there isn't already.

If you haven't gotten the point already, I've rejected your olive branch on the basis of what I feel is overwhelming evidence you're untrustworthy and don't have good intentions. I'n doing so though I don't trust you I'm giving you the benifit of the doubt yet again, in allowing you to prove that I'm the one holding you back. I've chosen the alternative to remove my self from the situation, so you can prove your character without my interference in any way shape or form.

Please don't leave any further comments here as they're unwanted and unwarranted, and go about your business. If you do, know I very well may not respond.

P.S. I find this business with the headline funny... you sight it as a protected part of your comment. I'm just shaking my head, how you can think leaving such an inflamatory headline on someone's homepage can be consided a protected part of a comment. It's beyond me. Would it be my a protected comment if I accused you of being an *sshole on your talk page and put the headline "Regarding so and so being an *sshole"? Your logic is beyond me, and not even worth debating, I'm glad you decided to change it to something non-inflamatory. Thanks for that at least.

Videoblogging group

Hey,

There's renewed interest in the article from the videoblogging group. I think if you can assume good faith and look towards the future you'll see that we can both make good progress on the article. You asked from help from Adrian. He made suggestions and I've already began to implement some of them into the article. I hope you'll take that as proof that we're moving in the right direction. Pdelongchamp 22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for a community ban on Pdelongchamp

I've checked this user's block log and it appears that he has never even been blocked. If you have issues with this user's conduct please follow the Dispute resolution process. --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy tony, Regarding your comment on my talk page. Am actively seeking alternatives. Maybe I jumped the gun but I've been all up and down the the process on how to resolve this process... you said the user has never been banned? I thought that's what we were submitting for? To tell you the truth I'd just love it if an admin talked to the user in question and told him... "look, you're dominating the editing there's something fundamentally wrong with that, give some other people a chance to contribute." Instead he just goes on emboldened by admins statments that it's "just an editing dispute"... this has been going on for over a year... if a matter of him disagreeing with everyone else is it just an editing dispute? I'm willing to try other processes, I only tried this community... thing... out of desperation. In the meantime I'll continue to gather information. The thing is he will be all polite now, but when noone's looking he'll just start mass deleting again. What other action can we take to send a message to a user to chill out on the deletes already? I need procedural advice mostly. Any sort of acknowlegement from wikipedia that this is not ok would go a tremendous distance... there's a whole community who's been alienated here and all the admins seem to say in their actions are "yeah, it's ok to delete every contribution to an article." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmeiser (talk • contribs) 03:15, 4 May 2007

If he's continually reverting good edits and refuses to explain himself, and several other people have tackled him about the same issue, then the next thing to do is to try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. --Tony Sidaway 03:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks tony that's the best piece of advice i've hear yet. That's a much better approach then the community ban thing which is frankly over the top.

Olive Branch Part Deux

Hey Mike,

Can we agree to put the past behind us and work together? Pdelongchamp 01:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pdelongchamp, it is not an olive branch from me you need. It is the communities. Sooner or later you will see it is better to be respected and to respect others then to simply be right. It is better to listen sometimes than to always speak, better to allow a little water under the bridge then to drown in your own pride.

I am done with the article, at least for the time being... we'll se where this issue stands in 3 or so months. What you've made of the page... if anyone else is contributing or if you've chased them off. It doesn't appear to me if the last vote has been declaired on the arbitration process... but I no longer care... it's over with as far as I'm concerned, unless some admin expresses interest. It strikes me as an absurdity that all but one vote was cast before I'd submitted any evidence... I can see that the assumption there is that all evidence will be submited up front... a failing of process perhaps... and a VERY large failure at that... who does make decisions without evidence for both sides being presented I don't know. I clearly I would submit evidence as it moved forward, noone inquired nor waited. So... whatever, it's done... You're problem is not in convincing me to work with you, it is as it has been in the past convincing the community. My hands are washed of the matter.

I just want you to know... this isn't personal... I will not hold it against you... I can even forgive that in the heat of the argument you went through my past contribs and attempted several deletions. I've hold and have held nothing against you.. you've had some damn good edits... the issue has been and continues to be simply your domination of the article, the fact you've made nearly half of all the edits and that the majority were straight deletions. This may be grey area when observed as indidual edits by others, but the sum total is not conducive to collaboration. --forgot to sign this, but it was me --mmeiser 17:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude please re-read the advise you've been getting for a long time from people, such as the explanations for why the process to consider banning pdelongchamp was halted. From what I read, the error didnt seem to be with the design of the processes, rather with jumping the gun and choosing the wrong process. My understanding is that you tried the first step, seeking advice, but then jumped straight to the last resort, calling for a user ban, which I dont think was advice you were given at any prior stage? The discussion about a ban was edited away when it became clear pdelongchamp has never even been blocked, which I assume is a sort of lesser temporary suspension. I guess people who get banned often have a long history of being blocked and other formal sanctions against them. Seeing that there was no such history here, you've been advised to go back and try the various methods of dispute resolution. Assuming good faith and talking about article specifics, not personalities, or personal dispute histories, would be an excellent start. I imagine these dispute resolutions are aimed at achieving decent articles, so if you have decided that a ban of pdelongchamp, or some grueling exercise in him earning the trust of an external community are the only satisfactory outcomes, then I am not overly optimistic that these processes will satisfy. SteveElbows 05:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steve, you are of course right... the issues is one of process. The process of user dispute is not well documented. Luckily Tony Sideaway above recommended Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct. There also may be another step prior to that. I'm going to give things some time to cool off.--mmeiser 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, taking into consideration your difficulty in assuming good faith, I believe it may be best for you to take a break from the article as you mentioned. I had hoped to work constructively with you however I am concerned that this may not be possible as you have not yet acted upon the Administrators' recommendations. Upon your return, I would encourage you to take Adrian and Cailil's advice and work on the article from your userspace. I believe that you have a lot to bring and that a focus on verifiability and reliable sources will help in your contributions. I would also recommend, when taking in new information, that you read comments and policies carefully and in a neutral mindset in order to avoid confirmation bias. I believe you have misinterpreted Tony's comment as a recommendation. Please make sure to read the top of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page very carefully. I hope to see you again soon when you are ready to return. Pdelongchamp 00:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]