Users/BrianOrr/Talk

This page is for discussing the contents of BrianOrr.

This guy is obviously a malicious editor. His edit history today consists of:

• Altering comments, which might be understandable for a new user...
  

• Aggression/dislike for other editors. (twice)
  

• And screwing with KemblePope's page over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, despite Kemble's statement that he preferred Brian not do so.

What's the proper way to deal with this guy?

• For what it's worth: I don't think he is the same person as srednivashtar or SecretAgentMan. They all use the same ISP though: O1 Communications (dial-up). —ebt
  

• O1 is a reseller... he's probably coming in through a cheap, bottom feeder local ISP like CW Net. -jw

His edits on KeblePope's page seem to be mostly grammatical, do you think he is trying to make himself an example and say he made no malicious edits and was ganged up on by "established editors"? —DagonJones

Ban him, he'll come back with another account. If you want to play whack-a-mole for a few months, be my guest. —WilliamLewis

• The last several edits he's made look very reasonable and the Vissé P. Storm, DDS is downright informational. What prompted this revert? -jw
  

• All I did was tell Tom Garberson to call the Enterprise and ask them why there seemed to be a paywall. Perhaps Tom doesn't like being told what to do; be that as it may, I suggested that strategy of gathering information as a way for him to save himself and everybody concerned on the wiki time. —BrianOrr
  

Maybe I read too much into it. Your history does you no favors. I see you as a user with a long history of trolling (not counting the other troll usernames you've used—srednivashtar, secretagentman, etc.); a user who doesn't like me¹ or anyone else on the Wiki; a user who passively aggressively messes with people; and a user who "deletes frivolous content" but is now adding frivolous content. If I was mistaken in attributing passive aggression to your comment, my mistake. But I don't think I was. I'll tell you what: keep up the non-crappy edits (way to go, by the way) and I'll give you the same benefit of the doubt I give everyone else. —TomGarberson

• Ah, and now we can add ESP and mind-reading to your vast resume, Tom. I submit as evidence your comment, "If I was mistaken in attributing passive aggression to your comment, my mistake." Unless, you can explain your inference there, i.e., how telling you to call the Davis Enterprise to find out whether they erected a "pay-wall" is passive-aggressive, I don't see the connection between that objective fact and all this other stuff you attribute to my motivation for making that particular comment. But then perhaps once immersed in the politics of law school, you start to see politics everywhere...I wouldn't know, I'm not into mind-reading and spending time tracking down where false attributions go sideways...off the tracks of logic and common sense.
  

It has nothing to do with politics. It's me assuming that your usual motivation for editing (i.e. trolling, lashing out at other editors, or otherwise being an ass) hasn't changed. As I'm sure you know, the tone of written word can be pretty ambiguous. When someone has your history, I tend to assume the worst when it comes to interpreting tone (I read the tone as something to the effect of "why are you wasting our time, just go call them"). I still suspect that I was correct in that interpretation. By contrast, if it's someone who has a history of editing constructively, I'd read the same words and say, hey, good idea! You've established an identity here. It's not a good one. People who read your words will do so in the context of that identity. If you really do mean well on the Wiki you'd do well to try and shift that identity toward a positive one. Read the identity page for ideas on how to do so. —["Users/TomGarberson]


• Tom, your comment above makes explicit your "ad hominem" stance, rather than an objective one. All the documentation you cite signifies You have read into, rather than read my comment. In other words, your above comment, being ad hominem, is political. Enough said, time to move on. Brianorr
  

You're welcome to characterize my inference however you choose. My point, which you ignored, remains: if you are serious about participating here in a constructive way, you'd do well to 1) go ahead and participate constructively; and 2) make that intent clear, rather than dancing around the issue of the identity you've established here. I hope you'll do so. —tg


• "Ad Hominem" is an argument directed at the person, not the person's assertions. Or, as you put it, "identity." You have an issue with my identity, not the point I raised—which was simply: you could have called the Davis Enterprise to find whether they had erected a paywall. —["Users/BrianOrr']
  

Thanks for continuing to prove my point that you're more interested in trolling than in contributing anything constructive. As for your assertion: close, but no cigar. Ad hominem is an argument against the person's assertions by way of portraying the person negatively. I haven't argued against any of your assertions (until now). There hasn't been any argumentum, which a prerequisite to argumentum ad hominem. I haven't commented on the merit of your suggestion, only on my interpretation of your tone in making it. But, like I said, you can characterize anything I've said however you'd like. If you want it to be ad hominem, we'll call it ad hominem. Let's be clear, though: it's the logically consistent variety, wherein the negative characteristic I'm emphasizing (your past tone and intent, i.e. trolling) is, in fact, logically related to what I'm inferring/criticizing (your present tone and intent). —tg


• Tom, your argument is against my wiki persona, not with the suggestion I made, which was, you'll remember, simply that you could call the Davis Enterprise to see if they had erected a paywall. Thus, your argument is "ad hominem," since it doesn't deal with my suggestion—which was in no way meant, I assure you, as an argument. Your efforts in researching and citing posts I previously submitted to the Davis Wiki show remarkable persistence, tenacity and energy and, as always, amaze me. I bet you score high marks in law school. However, we are drifting further and further from the original suggestion. What did the Enterprise ever say about the paywall? Did you call them? Or find out via other media what they are up to? The past few days I've had no problem navigating their website, and never paid a dime. —["Users/BrianOrr']