User talk:Davidjcobb

August 2014

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences with this edit. Your edit appears to constitute vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not vandalism. — ceejayoz ^talk 20:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a hoot! IP 143.231.249.138, who has been repeatedly blocked at Wikipedia for engaging in vandalism, threatens someone else because they legitimately reverted his hateful, transphobic edits? After his summer internship is up at the House of Representatives, this clown ought to join the circus where he belongs. Hopefully, he'll be trampled by elephants or mauled by lions. JohnValeron (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding IP editors...

...and this revision, you do not and cannot know that that is the same individual who was vandalizing; even if it really was, you do not have any way of knowing that. Aside from being unkind in that matter, you ought to know that that is why they are called "anonymous" in the first place. I have seen others behave in similar ways to IPs acting like "only one person ever uses it", and this is simply unfair. Dustin (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Their demeanor (i.e. snotty references to "witch hunts" and the "trans-lobby") was extremely similar to that of the vandal on talk pages (including this very talk page -- look up). I'll try to be more civil, but I feel entirely justified in calling BS. Davidjcobb (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I've forgotten, but to the best of my recollection, not once in all his hateful blathering did IP 143.231.249.138 ever suggest that there might be more than one person using that IP address. If Dustin is attempting to build a case for mistaken identify—to wit, Wikipedia blocking the wrong person for 30 days—I think that approach is going to fail the laugh test. JohnValeron (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for anonymity, I wonder if Dustin saw this choice morsel from 143.231.249.138 at the Transphobia talk page: "There's nothing illegal about editing Wikipedia to promote official business that has been explicitly authourized by the Representative. When you have other Representatives trying to push for laws such as ENDA, or when you have the EU using neocolonialist methods to impose transgenderism on the nation of Georgia through a visa agreement, it's all the more important." Perhaps Dustin could explain why, if our transphobic vandal from the Hill was "explicitly authorized" to vandalize Wikipedia on behalf of the Congressman for whom he works, anonymity is required. Since when must Congressional staffers, conducting legal official business in full public view on the Internet, remain anonymous? Behind such illegitimate camouflage, bigotry lurks. It is the antithesis of the democratic process. JohnValeron (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leading the fight

David, you are name-dropped in this article at Business Insider. Thanks for your leadership in resisting the Congressional vandal's most recent round of disruptive edits—his most despicable yet. JohnValeron (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]