User talk:Mike Bate

Staying on topic

In addition to my earlier edit summary, I would like to advise you that people take a severe view of stalking on Wikipedia. Please don't be on the wrong end of it. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marsden

There is a consensus to have an article on this subject and there is a consenus that this has been widely reported enough that there is no BLP issue. If you have further objections please discuss it on the article talk page. Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to attempt that. The bottom line is that this all well-sourced information that is easily googlable and is discussed in many different reliable sources. The DRV and other issues have remained clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've noticed that you don't have any edits before this January yet seem to have a deep understanding of this topic. Did you have a previous account? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a small piece of advice; when you are trying to desysop 4 or 5 admins it is probably a good sign that you need to sit down and discuss the matter. We do have a page at Talk:Rachel Marsden and you are welcome to argue your case there. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite correct and quite irrelevant. If there are any NPOV or BLP problems (such as potentially negative unsourced statements) or privacy violations, you'd have a point. Now, how does someone with zero prior edit history know so much about Wikipedia policy? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Marsden

I haven't been editing Marsden this time around but I have followed it a bit. I have to say that I do understand your general concerns. But I don't think you're going about it the right way.

I don't think that you need to be so combative with the other editors. I'm sure you've noticed that new users come to the article and they tend to feel the same way. It is really the Wikipedia culture that you have a problem with. There's obviously some tension between BLP and its strong adherents and the typical users who feel that they should be able to make any edits they'd like. It isn't fair to take it out on them individually. Any Wikipedian who stumbles across the article is going to behave the same way. I really don't think that you're going to get any satisfaction from the back-and-forth on the talk pages and the edit-warring.

And I don't think that asking for bans is a good idea. I have heard that banned users will sometimes still edit. =)

This has gone on for so long. I don't know if you enjoy it or not but I don't think that most of the editors have. What kind of resolution do you want? Are you going to keep this up as long as there is an article? I assume that you'd be okay with a completely positive or "neutral" biography. Is any criticism acceptable to you? I don't understand what you want, short of permanent deletion. I'd like to have some closure and I hope that you do too. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you said. One of the problems with allowing anyone to edit is that all articles tend to include frivilous details of all sorts. I would bet that thousands of our subjects have been thrown out of buildings, let alone done worse things like getting a speeding ticket. And of course that was only an allegation in this case. BLP aside, it is unimportant and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia.

I do think that the article should mention the SFU episode. I think that the media and probably society at-large treated Marsden unfairly, whichever side you believe. Even if she did something wrong, it didn't deserve the kind of attention that it attracted. But at the same time it was a huge news story at the time, especially in BC. I think that is probably a sad comment on our media, especially local media but it did happen all the same. Well I'm sure that you know a thing or two about media culture and history.

I think that you're probably wasting your time if you want to see the article deleted. In my opinion, Marsden is on the way up in her career. Her notability may be marginal now (in Wiki-speak) but she's just going to become more and more well-known.

I am optimistic that we can find some sort of resolution here. This has gone on much to long. Stretching it out won't benefit anyone, least of all Marsden. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we agree what the general outline of the article should look like then. Sorry, I thought you meant a Wiki-link to the SFU article. I think a carefully-worded paragraph about the SFU thing should be there. More of her career details should be included. Her radio show is missing, for example.

If we are just talking about the two boyfriends and the Fox incident then, I don't think that you're so far apart from any of the other editors. It really seems like very little to cause all of this fuss. Maybe ArbCom should just be asked about those three subjects and we can have some finality to all of this. If this were any other article, I'd say that we should talk about that on the article's talk page but I'm not sure that we be definitive in this case.

All of that aside, I do have to say that I think you should cool it with Victoriagirl and Clayoquot. They're both good editors and I think good people as well. If you have any problems with them, it is really just for being typical Wikipedians. In any event, it only hurts your ability to address the Marsden issue.

I haven't been happy with your behaviour through all of this. I understand that you feel that you were treated badly but I'm pretty sure that you know what was acceptable and what was not. I don't want to lecture you about that but I want you to know why I'm talking to you.

I understood the concerns that Thatcher had. I didn't oppose his deletion but I was disappointed to see the article go. I want to see this resolved in a way that is fair to Marsden, to all of the editors and the readers of Wikipedia. If I've understood you correctly, I think that a just resolution is within our grasp. I hope that everyone can cooperate so we can achieve that. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis

I've reverted your edit there. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If you think certain people are sockpuppets then file an RFCU about them. Your behavior so far is highly disruptive. You are headed for a likely block if you continue with this behavior. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of procedure, there are two issues with your request. (1) Each request should refer to editors suspected of being the same real-life individual. Here, you are adding two users whom you allege are sockpuppets, editing related articles, but a different individual. That should be covered by a separate request. (2) In any event, I believe the subject-matter of your request is related to a pending request for arbitration that you have filed. Under these circumstances, you should make your request for a check in your arbitration request, because many of the arbitrators are also checkusers. Please note, however, that you should only do this if it is a good-faith request. If it is frivolous, it will reflect badly on you and on your request. I hope this information is helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, just make a note in the checkuser request that there's an arb case pending, and then put a link in the arbitration request to the checkuser case. This may be easier than copying everything over again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't blank the page, let the admins close it cleanly. Corvus cornix_talk 02:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was probably reacting to my suggestion that the matter will be deferred to the Arbitration Committee, as he has a request for arbitration pending. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably true, but that doesn't give him the rights to blank the entire page, including 15 other cases. Corvus cornix_talk 02:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I suspect that was not his intent, or at least he didn't focus on the fact that that's what he was doing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was my request in the first place. Why can't I withdraw it? Mike Bate (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At best, you could have deleted that portion of the page that relates to your case, but you blanked the entire page, which has a long history that doesn't involve your case. Corvus cornix_talk 02:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Suzuki

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to David Suzuki, you will be blocked from editing. However, if it is verified that you are a sockpuppet, you will be blocked immediately. Sunray (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "disrupt" the page. I tagged it as having a neutrality debate. Anyone who reads the talk page can see that it does. Mike Bate (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To claim innocence of the actual nature of the discussion and comments on the talk page, is, quite simply, trolling. You are saying exactly what several sockpuppets have said, in complete disregard for the actual discussion on the talk page (in which you were asked to document your claims). How is one to conclude that you are anything other than one more in a long series of Arthur Ellis sockpuppets? Sunray (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. Mike Bate (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Sunray (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]