User talk:BlueSapphires/Videmus Omnia targeting Renner
Supposition: Videmus Omnia is Targeting Renner (and anyone else who mildly irks him) harshly)
editAssumptions
edit- This deletion is part of an overall punative action against James Renner by Videmus Omnia.
- Videmus Omnia is attacking anyone who mildly disagrees with him, very harshly. See (points)
Points
editI've already made comments about Videmus Omnia's egregious behavior in the last week here, on the Amy/JamesRenner article deletion cases. The no-warning block against Videmus Omnia today was completely justified. He targeted those people intentionally. I'm thinking we are observing someone with some serious issues, or in the middle of some kind of crisis. Evidence.
- Conincidence 1: James Renner
- Punishment for disagreeing. This started out as image-related, and grew to a massive attack on various fronts. Videmus Omnia is, as we speak, driving a mass deletion of a notable journalist (who's also directed a movie based on a short Steven King story). Omnia's main grudge is that the guy contested Omnia's opinion about fair use. The guy is a journalist and he wrote a book about the article topic - and he used the picture in his own book, and he tried to explain that to Omnia. Omnia seized on this information to report him for COI. There was already a BLP talk going on, abut the naming of suspects in a murder case - which is debatable as to who was right - but Renner doesn't know wiki rules, and he got tripped up and even blew his cool after Videmus had 4 different "trials" going on for him at once. He organized this rashly in one day - to a newbie expert (and famous) editor, who couldn't wikilawyer back.
- Conincidence 2: Neocoronis
- Punishment for ignoring him? Neocoronis removed the fair use tag from an image that he had put a fair use tag on. He asked her why she did that, - but she never had a chance to answer because he had commenced with the deletion of ALL her images within TEN MINUTES. This reminds me of the temper tantrums I've seen grown adults throw. Given that he keeps doing such severe things when people don't answer him, or engage as he wishes, I have the impression that he hates being ignored, and if ignored, he will attack. This has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. It speaks to something else. Dark.
- right now I'm thinking how glad I am that I'm not into uploading images. Isn't that sad? He'd attack me.
- Coincidence 3: Mike Halterman
- Videmus Omnia had demanded an retraction from Mike Halterman for calling the Alkivar's request for comment against Alkivar 'stupid sniping' because Videmus Omnia felt it implied that HE was stupid (which was completely ridiculous, from my point of view). Within TEN MINUTES, Videmus Omnia was deleting Mike's images. Coincidence???
- Coincidence 3: Alkivar
- Made an Request fo comment on Alkivar, and fast-forwarded it to a real RFC.
- Videmus Omnia started out the RFC by asking Abu badali to certify it as the 2nd party (Abu badali had been harassing Alkivar and others). This is WP:CANVASS, as well as inappropriate, given that Abu badali was involved in the initial (trumped up) accusation against Alkivar.
- He is taunting Alkivar by deleting all his pictures, obviously.
- And he made a bizarre accusation of sockpuppetry (Videmus Omnia requested a checkuser on Alkivar). Oddly enough the 'accused sockpuppet' was accusing Videmus Omnia of being a sock of Abu badali).
'My take: This is a guy with a severe drama addiction, and maybe worse. At the very least he's wasting a lot of time and energy that should be spent on substance. Another weird thing is that once I started calling his behaviors punative, he started saying other people were punative (no I dont have the link, but it was in the past 24 hours). Anything he is accused of, or described as, he describes other people as doing the same - when they aren't. Like accusing Squeakbox of stalking him, for no reason at all - while he is stalking (and harassing) others. I feel like I'm watching someone in a movie.
Debate with Bat-guy
editRenner had had a mild disagreement openly admitted that he was related to the image (and therefore the article) on Amy Mihalijevic. He was open his relationship to the Amy Mihalijevic case, when questioned - and that is called "admitting COI" which is what you are supposed to do, but Renner isn't a die-hard Wikipedia, so he didnt' declare it elsewhere (how would he know?) and he's being treated like a criminal - and having every article he ever touched deleted, and accused of sockpuppetry. Logging in from an IP is not a crime - even having different accounts isn't illegal, unless you vandalize intentionally. And he reacted strongly to Videmus Omnia, because Videmus Omnia was treating him with a lack of communication that surely felt like an attack. This is no way to treat newbies, and newbie experts no less. Videmus Omnia is a constant complainer about the tiniest slight to his ego - but he is unforivingly harsh on this man who felt attacked (rightfully) by Videmus Omnia. This kind of attack on experts has to stop if we are going to keep a legitimate encyclopedia. Videmus Omnia didn't start this deletion, but it was part of his package - he simply asked someone else uninvolved to create it. He'll probably come and vote later - but you can see here that he's put up the deletion of the image of Amy Mihalijevic Picture deletion, of the page of Amy_Mihaljevic. If you image guys are going to beat this with a stick (and Mr. Renner with it) I will write Amy's parents and ask for permission. It is a school photo - which, mind you, they released for publication to newspapers, and to the police and everywhere else. I'm 100% sure they wouldn't mind it being here, but you have to give a bit of time. Mr Renner got upset about the unempathic deletion command, but if you read his blog (I did) you can see he's devoted the past 3 years of his life to finding the killer of this girl. Try to think about how you'd feel if you were him, and you didn't have an huge basis of Wikipedia rules in your head (like the rest of the world). Thanks.BlueSapphires 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (signed later than I wrote it)
- Comment: Just to caution administrators that will make a decision based on this discussion, and in all fairness to the AFD process, the deletion of the James Renner article should have nothing to do with the deletion of the Amy Mihaljevic article. Addressing the comments directly above, please do not try and connect the two in this discussion. What I am gathering from argument made directly above is that since the Amy Mihaljevic is notable, then Renner is notable?Bat ears 05:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- reply: I didn't say one makes the other notable, you did. In fact, much of what makes Renner notable is his film and acting work, for which he's been interviewed as a sujbect, not a journalist. The book is a side-issue. BlueSapphires 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I understand your argument. Of course I dont think that a person is notable because he/she has a youtube video of his/her appearance as an audience member of the Today Show. And if this is just a side note to Renners notability, why is it the second line of the article about him? Bat ears 20:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- replyThanks: To be clear
- Audience member of Today show (not notable) – your point
- Making out with your journalist colleague (not notable) – was on his page
- Invited to interview on today show – probably notable (and those vids have him as the invited guest – not the audience member).BlueSapphires 01:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- replyThanks: To be clear
- Fair enough. I understand your argument. Of course I dont think that a person is notable because he/she has a youtube video of his/her appearance as an audience member of the Today Show. And if this is just a side note to Renners notability, why is it the second line of the article about him? Bat ears 20:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- reply: I didn't say one makes the other notable, you did. In fact, much of what makes Renner notable is his film and acting work, for which he's been interviewed as a sujbect, not a journalist. The book is a side-issue. BlueSapphires 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Just to caution administrators that will make a decision based on this discussion, and in all fairness to the AFD process, the deletion of the James Renner article should have nothing to do with the deletion of the Amy Mihaljevic article. Addressing the comments directly above, please do not try and connect the two in this discussion. What I am gathering from argument made directly above is that since the Amy Mihaljevic is notable, then Renner is notable?Bat ears 05:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- This article is poorly crafted, which does not help. Bat ears 20:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- True – for a journalist, he didn’t put a lot of effort into it, that’s for sure. And if he ws conesting notability, he didn’t put things in there that exist to help his case. Lucky I looked them up for him. Did you see the data I put in “workshop”? There is also a “Hollywood Reporter” article I forgot to put in (that’s like “Variety” – not sure if you are from the US, but in the US, Variety is what “the business” reads – I mean the film industry business. Anyways, if you want to help me to redraft it, Monday or Tuesday, with some of the workshop material, I'd be delighted. BlueSapphires 01:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- This article is poorly crafted, which does not help. Bat ears 20:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:It may not be a valid argument to say a Renner is a notable person because he authored a book on someone (someone who also currently has Wikipedia notability concerns for that matter). Furthermore, why would the user who left the above comments discuss edit conflicts from another article into this forum? Bat ears 05:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- reply: Because Videmus Omnia is attacking a lot of people for what seems to be irrational reasons - and because Videmus Omnia made FOUR SEPERATE delete meetings on matters related to James Renner - that is the same thing he did to the other people. Had a minor brush with them (or they didn't answer him) and he attacked them - some of them he deleted all their images (I mean ALL their images). For Renner, it looks like VO is deleting anything he'd care about. It is a cruel gesture - for starters - but more importantly, it is provoking.BlueSapphires 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Look, please understand that I had not knowledge of this. I can definitely understand why a person can be upset about it though. Bat ears 20:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- reply: Because Videmus Omnia is attacking a lot of people for what seems to be irrational reasons - and because Videmus Omnia made FOUR SEPERATE delete meetings on matters related to James Renner - that is the same thing he did to the other people. Had a minor brush with them (or they didn't answer him) and he attacked them - some of them he deleted all their images (I mean ALL their images). For Renner, it looks like VO is deleting anything he'd care about. It is a cruel gesture - for starters - but more importantly, it is provoking.BlueSapphires 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:What does adding a photo of Amy Mihaljevic to the Mihaljevic article have ANYTHING to do with the notability of James Renner? Bat ears 05:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- reply: Thank you for asking, the picture has NOTHING to do with the notablity of James Renner - to you and me. But it obviously had a connection (revenge) for Videmus Omnia, or he would not have proposed it for deletion the same day as that James contested his opinion? This guy is very thin-skinned. And very, very vengeful. BlueSapphires 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Again, point taken. And just curious, does this user know that he/she is the subject of this conversation? Bat ears 20:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- reply: Thank you for asking, the picture has NOTHING to do with the notablity of James Renner - to you and me. But it obviously had a connection (revenge) for Videmus Omnia, or he would not have proposed it for deletion the same day as that James contested his opinion? This guy is very thin-skinned. And very, very vengeful. BlueSapphires 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:Please remember that we are only here deciding if Renner (the journalist) is notable... we are NOT discussing Renner (the Wikipedian). Bat ears 05:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- reply: MY DEAR. We are only discussing the notability of this man because Videmus Omnia attacked him. We are discussing everything about James Renner, because VO made it necessary - all at once. It was a punative gesture, and yeah, it matters WHY sometimes as much as WHAT. Now to focus on the WHAT (substance), he is certainly notable - he could have even added better links to his page. I'll do that tomorrow. I have to go do something for the minute. I'll do it on Sunday (put references to justify his notability). I found some.BlueSapphires 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this is where you are mistaken. We are discussing his notability simply because I nominated the article for the deletion (Sole reason I nominated it: The subject of the article (Renner) is not notable). THAT is why we are having the discussion; this has nothing to do with user V. Omnia, sorry. Bat ears 20:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- reply: MY DEAR. We are only discussing the notability of this man because Videmus Omnia attacked him. We are discussing everything about James Renner, because VO made it necessary - all at once. It was a punative gesture, and yeah, it matters WHY sometimes as much as WHAT. Now to focus on the WHAT (substance), he is certainly notable - he could have even added better links to his page. I'll do that tomorrow. I have to go do something for the minute. I'll do it on Sunday (put references to justify his notability). I found some.BlueSapphires 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:Please do not make this confusion. Also remember to please sign your name after your comments and do not parts of your argument in bold type. Bat ears 05:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- reply: I'm not the slightest bit confused about 'why we have been gathered here' (because VO needed to make 4 deletion discussion after someone touched his fragile ego) versus 'what the issue is' (if the man is notable). I'm PERFECTLY aware of the difference. My point is that I want other people to realize this too. A case is being made that this guy is misusing Wikipedia and it is not only untrue (though the article is NOT in good shape) but it is a smear campaign by VO. When VO is simultaneously constructing smear campaingns against other people - it speaks to the rational basis of why this AFD was made in the first place. And FOUR deletions at once? Come on. Do you really think they aren't connected? And that people won't judge him and the Amy article that the book is about, based on his supposed COI, or BLP, or whatever? That's how smear campaigns work. Are you *really* that innnocent?BlueSapphires 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Points taken. This is news to me. Thanks, I will look into it just for my own information. Bat ears 20:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- To be clear Videmus Omnia has here four ongoing attacks on users taking place, as we speak (and thats only the ones I'm aware of). It isn't only the James Renner case. I'm wondering if Videmus Omnia isn't going through some kind of crisis, because he seem to need a huge hullabaloo and massive drama. In this case, Videmus Omnia managed to organize 4 differnt "trials" towards deleition against James R. The fact that Videmus Omnia organized these briefly after a small disagreement with James R about free image usage rights - and the fact that he has attacked three other people viciously for similarly small discussion, indicates that this is a punative gesture, and that it is a pattern. BlueSapphires 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- See here the other cases: Alkivar, Mike Halterman and NeoCoronis
- It is now being recognized here that he's targeted User:Alkivar, User:Mike Halterman, and User:NeoCoronis by deleting all their images when they didn't respond to his satisfaction - or (in Alkivar's case) as part of a larger mass attack - just like the one he's doning on James Renner, now - actually, he's doing all these at once. Does this guy have a job? Friends? He's attacking 4 people concurrently. Four simultaneous fights takes some amazing energy. And here is the point: This AFD is more about Videmus Omnia - and his "stuff" - than James Renner's notability, or Amy's article's notability, or BLP or COI, or if James Renner has the cooties. We are here, having this discussion, because we are stooges :) (and I say that with love), participating in an attack he organized.
- BlueSapphires 09:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- reply: I'm not the slightest bit confused about 'why we have been gathered here' (because VO needed to make 4 deletion discussion after someone touched his fragile ego) versus 'what the issue is' (if the man is notable). I'm PERFECTLY aware of the difference. My point is that I want other people to realize this too. A case is being made that this guy is misusing Wikipedia and it is not only untrue (though the article is NOT in good shape) but it is a smear campaign by VO. When VO is simultaneously constructing smear campaingns against other people - it speaks to the rational basis of why this AFD was made in the first place. And FOUR deletions at once? Come on. Do you really think they aren't connected? And that people won't judge him and the Amy article that the book is about, based on his supposed COI, or BLP, or whatever? That's how smear campaigns work. Are you *really* that innnocent?BlueSapphires 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:It may not be a valid argument to say a Renner is a notable person because he authored a book on someone (someone who also currently has Wikipedia notability concerns for that matter). Furthermore, why would the user who left the above comments discuss edit conflicts from another article into this forum? Bat ears 05:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)