User talk:HappyCamper

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi Wonderfool,

I wonder if you could talk to me a bit about the situation surrounding these nihilarticles. What are your thoughts on this? I'm a bit surprised and disappointed to find out about them, so I hope you could share with me your thoughts on what you intend to do moving forward.

Thanks very much, -HC

Cheers HC, you've been kinda on my side throughout this. Cheers buddy. Er yeah, the nihilartikel thing was kinda like an experiment. As for the remaining article, I first want to see if it can survive a year (fingers crossed - its nearly there). The experiment was jolly fun. I mean, its like "it looks to me as if Wonderfool is a good editor, for the most part an asset to WP, with a sense of humour. My guess is that he regards this as playing a practical joke on his friends. Why not invite him to 'fess up and BJAODN them? They must be reasonably good hoaxes to get Wikified by other editors.", what w:User:Just zis Guy, you know? said. "Wikipedia does not need editors who deliberately sneak in misinformation." is another good point, made by w:Knowledge Seeker. The " a contributor 1% of whose contributions are unreliable is worse than useless" by w:User:Arwel aint so good. "Recommend Wonderfool should be sent to bed without his cookie. Permabanning him is unbelievably harsh. Edit well, Wonderfool.", cheers w:User:FreplySpang. "I doubt you'd get anywhere banning him, blocking him, or making agreements with him. He's a little...odd.", accordng to w:User:Phroziac. Phew, lots of reading. I may have to take another wikibreak again. Or maybe make some more sockpuppets, yeah, watch out for my sockpuppets. --Wonderfool 16:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So it goes on[edit]

In the following write-up, I shall be referring to all users as "he", lest I should should check their gender

Aah, wicked stuff. This new addition has been made after my so-called "nihilartikels" (w:Hot Puppies, W:Spyguard and W:Javanais) have been declared as not nihil. What ensues is my analysis of the discussion (at least, of the discussion available to see on w:wp:an. I'd've drifted into IRC but decided to follow proceedings from the main site instead.

The Evidence is stacking up. I think I'll play it cool and see how this works out until I make my "next move" (note to self - figure out next move). Anyway, back to the analysis of the page, deriving what's valid and what's pigswill. I begin:

  1. "Folks, this is a clear-cut case of WP:IAR being applied correctly", from Titoxd is a bad comment, not true. I guess hu aint admin.
  2. "his nihilartikels are not nihil, then you can't block him until he fesses up. Blocking for disruption may be in order, but this Order is now null, as far as I can see", a worthy statement from Guettarda.
  3. "the apology is still needed" from Mindspillage. Blimey, this is rather complicated stuff - there can't've been a precedent.
  4. "I think it's a mistake to block him, regardless of his past, for the following combined reasons:
  • He has shown a great interest in Wikipedia, and that he has the free time necessary to contribute significantly to the project.
  • He has shown an interest in creating fake articles and using sockpuppets.
  • Every single moment that he spends editing under his username is a moment that we can monitor.
  • Every single moment that he spends editing under his username is a moment that he can't spend editing through a hidden/anonymous name.
  • Every single moment that he spends editing through one of the easily-available subversive methods is a moment that we can not monitor. (He will be able to easily edit through these means regardless of the block)
  • Blocking always makes the blockee more hostile.
  • The only purpose to such a block can be to send a message to the community that we do not tolerate such action.
  • These things, combined, tell me that it would be bad to block. ", from w:User:Brian0918", how has emailed me. I shall reply to the email on here in a short while. This Brian dude has come out as a level-headed editor.
  1. "Wonderfool, under pressure to mark his nihils as such, took a quick pass through his changes, and thought "hmm, I vaguely recall something dodgy about this Hot Puppies one... better mark it as ." An hour-and-a-half later, he had time to check it out a little more, realized it wasn't a proper nihil, and changed it from {{db}} to {{afd}}. " from Bunchofgrapes is probably the best comment so far. That's kinda what my thinking was. Me and Bunchofgrapes could be soulmates maybe. Who knows. Kudos to him. He summarises well: "There's no denying that he enjoys jerking our chains. I don't know what the appropriate remedy is for that." - lol, amusing comment. I dunno the remedy either.
  2. "I think he threw some of his old borderline-notables at us to keep his true nihilartikels in hiding." - from Brian0918, who, as far as I can tell, is trying to make amends for previous wrongful thinking. Plus, it is a convincing argument. Actually, having another read through this, he checked out that Hot Puppies was real. Maybe he aint so bad after all
  3. "I've copyeditted that one, and it's definitely not a nihil" from Violetriga, whom I;ve always thought was an exceptional editor, partly due to her exploding snake article.

Not that I'm trying to stir, but I'd be interested to know who deleted these three "fake nihilartikels". Thanks for listening, --Wonderfool 22:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)