User talk:Googie man/Archive1

Threat to go to press

I think you might care to ask Lambton to avoid making legal threats too, the atmosphere is turning nasty for everyone involved and from what I can see (though I may be wrong) Lambton started this (although of course 2 wrongs do not make a right). Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googie Man, first can I reiterate that threats like "I will go to the press in 24 hours if this is not dealt with" are not helpful. I appreciate that you have withdrawn that from my talk page, but I am concerned that you chose to make it in the first place.

Leaving that aside, I think you are overblowing the situation somewhat. I don't see Jovin Lambton‎'s comment as a direct threat against your personal safety or a legal one against you either. As far as I can see, he was saying that your original accusation against Another Solipsist left you open to legal action. While I doubt that would happen, technically he could be right about that.

It is also clear that continuing to engage with him is not improving a rather fraught situation. I would advise you to disengage with Jovin Lambton‎ and let the matter drop. The alternative is to continue this argument, and I think the likely outcome of that is you will get yourself into further trouble, as will others involved in the matter. Sometime discretion is the better part of valor.

I can't see anything that Jovin Lambton‎ has done that is a blockable offense. However, I may have missed something. If there is anything problematic beyond the edits on Jovin Lambton‎'s talk page, I can review it further. Please leave a diff on my talk page showing me the exact edit(s) that are bothering you. Thanks, Gwernol 22:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - let's put this behind us. I don't mind Googie man contributing to articles, as long as he keeps his promise :) J*Lambton ^T/_C 22:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look at his user talk page, Gwernol. Lambton has been warned for making legal threats, and threats that poison the atmosphere. I am not defending Googie, but there are clearly 2 wrongs here and Lambton has been warned that repeats will result in blocks, really both Googie and Lambton need to see their behaviour meaning they are on parole. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made it perfectly clear above, that I have read Jovin Lambton‎'s talk page. I don't see that he's made a legal threat against Googie man. Gwernol 22:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, if you feel I don't have the full context, give me the full context. I've told you my opinion and I've told you exactly why I believe that. Attacking me is very unlikely to make me change my mind. Show me some evidence, and I might. Gwernol 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Jovin blanked the warnings from his talkpage, with the edit summary "archive stupid discussion/disinformation." This is a typically incivil comment from Jovin. Here is another: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism#balancing_re_Boychat.2Finternet. Why he wasn't on civility parole from that moment forward escapes me. But he is continually incivil, and I have come to the point where I think since no admin will indef him, that those who are forced to encounter him should WP:SHUN him. I also do not understand why he was not blocked for "collaborating" with sockpuppets: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Pedophile_topic_mentorship#Examples_of_edit_warring_in_tandem_with_Tor_socks. Googie man is not the problem here, IMHO, the problem is Jovin (from the perspective of those who have experience with Jovin...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googie man, apart from this edit, what are you interpreting as a legal threat from Lambton? I don't see a legal threat in his statement. If that's all you have "spent all day talking about" then I simply disagree with you. If there is something else, please show me it, as I have asked you to do three times now. Thanks, Gwernol 22:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwernol, its me who said warned Lambton about his legal threat, and if you want clarification from me about t hat please post to my user page. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Squeak was correct when he called it a "borderline" legal threat. What concerns me more about it is the grotesque incivility: "I am not interested in your ideas" and "I would rather (you edit other articles)." The borderline legal threat is thrown in as extra to try to spook Googie man from editing--the whole comment is designed to intimidate Googie away from editing any articles where his pov might conflict with Jovin's. I think also that his threat was directed sideways at me, for welcoming Googie back--Jovin accused me of "encouraging" him, and stated that "encouraging" Googie to edit posed "legal and personal risks," which is absurd. There was some pro-pedophile nutjob from the German Wikipedia who sued after he was banned, so I don't think we should ignore legal threats, even borderline, in this topic area. (Jovin claims that he had a previous account, but has not disclosed any other information about it). -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googie man, Lambton was talking about your accusation against Another Solipsist, as you noted. As far as I can see, all he is saying is that further similar actions would cause you personal legal jeopardy. That is not making a legal threat against you. Nor is it making any threat against your personal safety. I think at most its poorly worded. That sentence alone certainly isn't enough to take action against a user, in my opinion. You asked for my opinion, and I have given it to you: just walk away, let the matter drop and no harm will come to you.

I don't think it was wise of Lambton to continue to harp on about this, just as I don't think it is wise for you to now continue to worry about this matter. The sentence you quoted is not enough to block Lambton. If you have other issues you want me to look into you are welcome to bring them to my attention. If the only thing you are worried about is this edit then I don't have anything else to add.

If you want to wait to compile extra evidence, please do so. What you shouldn't do is throw around words like "you're making a gross misjudgment" when you don't have the evidence (yet, presumably) to back up your accusation. Gwernol 23:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you asked me to look at a threat made against you. I told you that I did not see a threat. What is it you expect me to do when I don't believe a threat has been made? I asked you to leave me further evidence if you felt I had missed anything. Your response was accuse me of gross misjudgement without providing any further evidence to back that up. I'm afraid that the onus is on you to show that a real threat has been made if you want specific action to be taken. We do not block people without evidence. This is the reason why I am asking that you show some specific evidence of a threat. Gwernol 23:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]