Captain Screebo (talk | contribs) |
→Captain Screebo: what is it, then? |
||
Line 250: | Line 250: | ||
:Concur. This a newbie with a single edit -- why prolong an interaction which isn't going well? <small>[[User talk:Nobody Ent|Nobody Ent]]</small> 10:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC) |
:Concur. This a newbie with a single edit -- why prolong an interaction which isn't going well? <small>[[User talk:Nobody Ent|Nobody Ent]]</small> 10:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Captain Screebo |
== Captain Screebo == |
||
This one is <s>a comparatively minor, but also</s> quite straightforward. I don't really feel much offended, but I would like to see it made clear to the user that he cannot continue to interact with others this way. If that doesn't occur, he'll draw the conclusion that he can get by with making personal attacks with no consequences. <small>''Struck through. Not so minor, given escalating pattern. Also updated section title to reflect language offered subsequently to an unrelated user.''</small> |
This one is <s>a comparatively minor, but also</s> quite straightforward. I don't really feel much offended, but I would like to see it made clear to the user that he cannot continue to interact with others this way. If that doesn't occur, he'll draw the conclusion that he can get by with making personal attacks with no consequences. <small>''Struck through. Not so minor, given escalating pattern. Also updated section title to reflect language offered subsequently to an unrelated user.''</small> |
||
Line 310: | Line 310: | ||
* On re-reading my comment from last night, and without being aware that this had been added here as further proof that I am just a foul-mouthed jerk (cheers SL93), I struck my comment and added an apology and explanation for my overreaction. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FGemini_Wars&diff=489761463&oldid=489759626] |
* On re-reading my comment from last night, and without being aware that this had been added here as further proof that I am just a foul-mouthed jerk (cheers SL93), I struck my comment and added an apology and explanation for my overreaction. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FGemini_Wars&diff=489761463&oldid=489759626] |
||
* Finally, as to the tabloid-style heading of this section, no editor is being accused of ejaculation, "you must be paranoid" is just a surprised reaction at what I perceive to be Ohio's overreaction to a fairly banal comment (compared to, say, being called a jerk or an asshole) and I maintain that it's intellectualy dishonest to cherrypick bits of policy, we all know that the news channels cut and splice interviews to make people appear to say things that they didn't, and all of this without believing that Ohio is a deceitful, baseless person ready to resort to any skullduggery to get his point across. <b>[[User:Captain Screebo|<font color="B22222">Captain</font><font color="DAA520">Screebo</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Captain_Screebo|<font color="32CD32">Parley!</font>]]</sup></b> 11:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC) |
* Finally, as to the tabloid-style heading of this section, no editor is being accused of ejaculation, "you must be paranoid" is just a surprised reaction at what I perceive to be Ohio's overreaction to a fairly banal comment (compared to, say, being called a jerk or an asshole) and I maintain that it's intellectualy dishonest to cherrypick bits of policy, we all know that the news channels cut and splice interviews to make people appear to say things that they didn't, and all of this without believing that Ohio is a deceitful, baseless person ready to resort to any skullduggery to get his point across. <b>[[User:Captain Screebo|<font color="B22222">Captain</font><font color="DAA520">Screebo</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Captain_Screebo|<font color="32CD32">Parley!</font>]]</sup></b> 11:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
:If "i ejaculate when someone sends me a promo video of a soon to be announced game" is not an accusation of ejaculation then what is it, exactly? <small>[[User talk:Nobody Ent|Nobody Ent]]</small> 12:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:42, 29 April 2012
Welcome to wikiquette assistance | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
Active discussions
General hostility from User:Eddaido, with edit-warring and attacks
These two recent exchanges with SamBlob (talk · contribs) are unacceptable. Describing other editors as "Dogging" and their contributions as "a nasty mess" is not acceptable behaviour per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norah,_Lady_Docker&action=history
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mini_%28marque%29&diff=prev&oldid=483972348
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eddaido&diff=prev&oldid=484053946
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bentley_8_Litre&action=history
I placed a warning here User_talk:Eddaido#Attacks_on_other_editors_in_edit_summaries after the Bentley stuff, but I see that he's back to it again today on the Lady Docker page.
I've past history with this editor myself, with similar attacks and edit warring, but nothing was resolved Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive179#User:Eddaido_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_declined.29 It seems a typical behaviour for this editor that they will see an issue or warning like this, but their response to it will be a non-sequitur like "Fascinating and weighty stuff", rather than any attempt to engage.
Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Further examples of Eddaido's incivility:
- [[User talk:Eddaido#calling a spade a spade (the spade = QE2)]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eddaido#calling_a_spade_a_spade_.28the_spade_.3D_QE2.29
- User talk:Eddaido#Re: Wolseley sheep shearing
- Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Disagreement (mostly) based on recriminatory Bad-Faith accusations
Involved editors:
- Brendon111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Griswaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Involved Pages:
- User talk:Brendon111 ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs) (this section)
- User talk:Griswaldo ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs) (this section. Note:It's a very long page because it's not archived)
- Summary
The thing is User:Griswaldo has been accusing me (Brendon) of being a "Veteran Duck" and also of creating a "single-purpose account" (diff) first on my talk-page, and later in his talk-page. He wants me to disappear (diff) from Wikipedia based on that sheer presumption that I'm simply "too knowledgeable" to be a newcomer. I told him that I don't like his approach because it was primarily predicated upon bad-faith assumptions and to leave me alone (diff). Yet he has dogmatically clung onto his belief. I refrained from using any impolite word against him knowingly. Yet, he was totally against my behavior for which I've submitted clarifications multiple times along with "if apologies". FYI, I gained my knowledge about WP:POLICIES by visiting Wikipedia for various reasons. Is that my fault here? Could I do more to gain his trust?
[All one has to do is just read the talk pages mentioned above, to understand what is going on]
- What I did wrong?
Maybe It's my reaction/retorts that upset him. I really don't know.
He claims that I was assailing people with personal comments in other discussions about non-related topic, but in his list (he has a list of my "personal comments" on his talk page) I couldn't find many personal attacks.
He also claims that I'm "quacking like a veteran duck" (I didn't like the tone even a bit and moreover the essay that he was referring to was WP:DUCK and it contains personal opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies. That's why I am not so pleased with Griswaldo's comments).
Perhaps my fault was that I asked Belorn on his user-talk page to tell me how to report somebody for harassing me, albeit I didn't take anybody's name. It was just a precautionary measure. Because I am really not a "veteran".
[I hang around Wikipedia whenever I'm free. That's why I know some things about Policies (not much!)]
- What have I done to try and fix the situation before reporting it here?
- I tried to calmly sort the issue out, although he didn't seem willing at all.
- I gave him "if apologies" (although I was unsure if it was truly me who needed to apologize).
- I tried to dispel his doubts
(I don't know if I tried hard enough though).
- What I hope to achieve here?
I believe vindictiveness doesn't help anyone and thus I want to gain his trust that I'm not here on Wikipedia with any bad intent.
Regards,
Brendon ishere
04:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion about above
Brendon, why is it that you've chosen not to use the large amounts of eye-catching formatting that you have been using everywhere else (to the great annoyance of other editors) here? Is it because you know it's annoying and you don't want to annoy people here when you're asking for help?Griswaldo (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- You claim "I'm not here on Wikipedia with any bad intent," but what I'm suggesting, quite clearly, is that you're doing something that is against the rules. One could genuinely think that socking is not ill intentioned and one could also cleverly believe that no one could prove otherwise, but the fact remains that its the behavior itself that is against the rules and not the intentions behind it. So maybe it would be better for you to directly address the supposed behavior instead of your intentions. So?Griswaldo (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- The explicit/implicit presuppositions don't seem really helpful to me.
See, here I need not catch anybody's eyes because my personal problems are unimportant as compared to the demands to ignore paramount Pillars of Wikipedia. What happens to me after this discussion is really immaterial (as it only serves personal interests) but what happens after that RfC is far more important (because it will probably impact on the Wikipedia community collectively). Brendon is here 10:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Which is precisely why your clearly illicit editing of the RfC is completely against core Wikipedia principles and against the community's trust in the notion that the decisions we make about our project are made as fairly as possible. You're tainting the process. And now you seem to be suggesting that once you've effectively influenced the process who knows what will happen to you. Perhaps you'll just disappear ... just awful.Griswaldo (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would request anybody to visit the pages he is referring to and to see for themselves If I've been extraordinarily illicit (i.e. see if there were some extenuating circumstances or not).
And even if it were true, it won't justify a completely needless bad-faith accusation on my talk-page even after my expression of disapproval for the approach used (this is what we're discussing here).
One crime doesn't justify another. Brendon is here 11:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- On the contrary. Certain behaviors are only crimes in certain contexts. Approaching someone who is socking about their socking is not a crime. If I'm mistaken, if your quacking turns out to be nothing more than a very odd series of coincidences then I'll happily apologize. But it is a well established convention here (indeed its also part of many policies) that vandals, disruptive editors and those who are sock puppeting are not afforded the privilege of hiding behind policies meant to apply to normal law-abiding citizens. For instance 3RR doesn't apply when reverting vandalism, and so on and so forth. I note that you have still not addressed any of my concerns about your behavior.Griswaldo (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"Approaching someone who is socking about their socking is not a crime."
- but doing that without conclusive evidence is Petitio Principii logical fallacy. An obnoxious one, I must say. Brendon is here 11:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)- I do have circumstantial evidence. It's presented below. WP:DUCK may just be an essay but it is one that is invoked frequently (by admins), and it is invoked because often there is no material evidence of socking. I see you're getting more joy out of arguing smugly about this than simply proving, or even asserting your own innocence. Add that to the list of behavioral circumstantials -- its typical of rightly accused socks. People who are innocent react quite differently to being wrongly accused. For one they try hard to dispel the accusation, not to evade it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- On the contrary. Certain behaviors are only crimes in certain contexts. Approaching someone who is socking about their socking is not a crime. If I'm mistaken, if your quacking turns out to be nothing more than a very odd series of coincidences then I'll happily apologize. But it is a well established convention here (indeed its also part of many policies) that vandals, disruptive editors and those who are sock puppeting are not afforded the privilege of hiding behind policies meant to apply to normal law-abiding citizens. For instance 3RR doesn't apply when reverting vandalism, and so on and so forth. I note that you have still not addressed any of my concerns about your behavior.Griswaldo (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would request anybody to visit the pages he is referring to and to see for themselves If I've been extraordinarily illicit (i.e. see if there were some extenuating circumstances or not).
- Which is precisely why your clearly illicit editing of the RfC is completely against core Wikipedia principles and against the community's trust in the notion that the decisions we make about our project are made as fairly as possible. You're tainting the process. And now you seem to be suggesting that once you've effectively influenced the process who knows what will happen to you. Perhaps you'll just disappear ... just awful.Griswaldo (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- The explicit/implicit presuppositions don't seem really helpful to me.
- I am not a sock, man. Come on! Besides "circumstantial evidence" is not "conclusive evidence" that I'm a sock. Furthermore, repeated claims of me being a sock, looks like a gratuitous personal attack here (that's what I'm complaining about). To claim that I've been uncivil as an answer to that (implying that my objection is baseless), would be tu qouque fallacy.
I guess, you can always start a RfC exclusively for clearing your doubts about my incivility on other pages (apart from your and my talk-pages), but it's not the topic here. - Oh I see, are you implying that I'm a sock just because you didn't like my behavior? (It's a question not a statement)
In that case, your claim is unquestionably hollow. Brendon is here 11:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- More of the same type of argument which addresses nothing I've said just attempts to dismiss it. Your incivility lead me to consider the possibility that you were a sock of some kind because you baited me with it like a troll does. Comments like these are also more evidence of the fact that you're not new here by the way. Of course given your uncivil behavior its also ironic that you started a request here about someone else.Griswaldo (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Your incivility lead me to consider the possibility that you were a sock" — really? Wow! How convenient! Brendon is here 12:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Reply from Griswaldo
Let's cut to the chase. Brendon is not a newbie who started editing less than a month ago. What gives it away?
- His immediate knowledge of Wiki formatting (user page, talk page edits, and signature).
- The way in which he discusses policy. By this I don't simply mean knowledge but a sense of familiarity that comes from prolonged exposure - e.g. [1], [2]
- Likewise the way in which he discusses Wikipedia in general (often quoting policy while doing it), as if he has prolonged experience with the project and the community and knows what's best for it from that experience - e.g. [3], [4]
- And most damningly, the fact that he's an SPA who only edits a community discussion. In fact he created his account on the very day that this discussion started!!!
The only area Brendon edits is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images and that page is littered with more examples like the ones above, but it's also littered with Brendon's uncivil and battleground behavior. Here are some examples:
- In one of his first comments he writes: "Even the proposal of such an action seems absolutely disgusting," and "Wikipedia must not
mollycoddlepander to the ever-increasing, unreasonable and incessant demands of any religion (no matter how much is its penchant for gratuitous communal violence)." (Note -- the strikethrough of mollycoddle was in his very original comment, and not a later edit). - A day later he added this gem: "If — heaven forbid — any restriction is placed on the free use of any Image solely based on the fear of upsetting some over-sensitive lunatics, it will contravene not only WP:NOTCENSORED, but also other policies namely WP:NPOV, WP:PROFANE, etc. Why is this so hard to understand? AFAIK, Wikipedia is not an Islamic proselytising website that it has to comply with the quranic embargoes."
- This type of commentary has continued throughout. Just the other day he wrote this on the talk page: "What's your intent behind bringing this nonsensical drivel into the current discussion?"
In the last example I asked Brendon to be civil to the other editor, and instead of apologizing or striking his comment he simply made excuses. More recently, and just prior to my wising up on what was going on with him he accused me of "trying to" mislead people at the RfC. When I told him that's not WP:AGF, he again did not apologize and made more evasions while referring to my "excessively captious attitude, false-reasoning and chicaneries." Because of the aggressive manner in which he was engaging me and others I actually found myself replying in kind, and deleting my own comment when I realized, quite frankly, that I was most likely being trolled.
Because of what I describe above I went to Brendon's talk page to ask him about the evidence of his Wikipedia experience and about his motives. He has evaded those questions and instead is now insinuating that I'm harassing him. Ever since it was clear that he didn't want me on his talk page the conversation has continued on mine. I want to make it clear also that I did not ask Brendon to dissappear. What I said was conditional: "If you're a community banned user then disappear completely.If you are a topic banned editor then please stop editing the topics you are banned from with a second account. If you have another legitimate account then please stick to using that one. Cheers." Now the fact that he claims I asked him to disappear logically means one of two things. 1) He's misrepresenting what I said or 2) he's actually a community banned editor. Either way it's not good. I also want to add that the reason I approached him in the first place is because this is a serious problem. Community banned and topic banned editors are constantly showing up at various community venues to distort the process. Some of them are just vandals but others have an agenda beyond simply trolling. It needs to stop. And in case anyone believes Brendon for a second ask yourself why on earth a newbie editor would show up and engage single minded in a community process only. It just doesn't happen. When it happens you can bet your bottom dollar that it's a sock puppet.Griswaldo (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Brendon's answers
I'm not going to waste my energy here by writing all the replies again. So, I am copy-pasting my previous explanatory reply below. Please bear with me.
Although I think excessive focus on how (i.e. style and niceties of my rhetoric) rather than What (i.e. content) I express is a tad too much, which in my opinion, is also unneeded at this point and exists with a high degree of negative presumptions, I thank you for giving a chance to clarify my stance as well as those seemingly aggressive assertions (which were anyway quoted out of context).
“Muslim-sympathizers” — What's wrong with that phrase? And didn't I annex a "no offense please" tag behind that also (which you forgot to quote)? I'm assuming that you didn't leave it out intentionally. But still, if it hurt anybody I offer them my most sincere condolences.
“Islamic mumbo-jumbo” - Yes, this might seem a bit aggressive. But again, You didn't write the whole line and to give others a sense of the context I'm going to quote the line, I wrote, "Frankly speaking, if it were not for Islamic mumbo-jumbo, there wouldn't have been any discussion regarding sober depictions of dead people." So I assume you might understand my disgust behind that line too. And also, the stringent practices of Islam don't make any sense logically, that's what I was indicating by "mumbo-jumbo". But is it a crime to express genuine views frankly? I dare say, no. Moving on!
“Over-sensitive lunatics” - This phrase in and out of itself refers to only those who are over-sensitive lunatics. If a person is not one of those “over-sensitive lunatics” it should not hurt him. I referred specially to those who are over-sensitive and also lunatic (I didn't say that pointing towards any other group or person). But you again presumed I did.
“Islamic hyper-sensitivity” - I don't want to sound like a statesman, but every religion has hyper-sensitive people. Islam is no different (has adherents who are more sensitive than what's normally accepted). You must have heard of the Danish cartoon controversy aka Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and that Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered on the streets of Amsterdam just because he made a film which "hurt the sensitivities" of some Muslims. These provide frightened non-Muslims like us with a certain amount of leeway for using phrases like “Islamic hyper-sensitivity”, or even “Over-sensitive lunatics” while pointing towards those who generally fit the description.
If it were a RfC about censorship of the Image of Jesus, I would have probably used phrases like “Christian hyper-sensitivity” (because the demand itself is extremely detrimental to the reliability of an encyclopaedia) but sadly It's not about Image of Jesus but Muhammad.
“Its penchant for gratuitous communal violence” - Wow! You almost made it sound as if I was referring to Islam. I wonder why do you forget to mention the whole line. I wrote, "Wikipedia must not
mollycoddlepander to the ever-increasing, unreasonable and incessant demands of any religion (no matter how much is its penchant for gratuitous communal violence). Thank you! :)" I wasn't referring to Islam. Hence, what's so important about these phrases that I used in my comments?And, Why did you neglect the line where I clearly wrote, "most Muslims are moderate and, with good reason, don't expect everybody else to cater to their views"? [Click here]
"Offending those who come to Wikipedia is not the best path" - Is "censoring information just for the sake of not offending people" the best path for an "encyclopaedia"? I stick to my view. I tell you again, in an encyclopaedia, not sensitivity but verifiability, fidelity to the true nature of information while representation and the quality of information are what count.
If anything, anything at all, clashes with these policies (not to mention, which have been majorly responsible for the free-flow of information without killing the whole enterprise) then I think its better to reject that thing than to reject the policies altogether.
-- Brendon ishere 03:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I also see now [13:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)] that Griswaldo has claimed that I've never apologized for my bad-faith accusation that he was trying to "misguide people", so I present my exact reply and see if I've apologized or not.
"I'm not trying to misguide anyone" - Good, you shouldn't. But from your excessively captious attitude, false-reasoning and chicaneries, I found it hard to come to any other conclusion. However, I didn't mean that you're knowingly trying to misguide people. I meant you are muddying the water and thus people can be misguided because of you (stop picking on phraseology). It did not seem as serious an accusation to me (also, it had nothing to do with good or bad faith)!
Anyways, I'm sorry if it truly hurt you.
BTW, You should know that a harsh accusation of bad-faith is in itself a grave accusation.
I agree, I was brusque. But so were you, Griswaldo. I said "I'm sorry" multiple times. How many times have you apologized for you bad-faith accusations? I think you owe me an apology too. Let's end this right end. I am a peace-loving person and I don't want to continue this dispute. Don't accuse me of anything, say you're sorry and we are done. Again, I am sorry if my words truly hurt you. But I didn't mean to hurt you was just being forthright in my views. I really didn't know that you were going to shower me with all sorts of accusations ranging from me being a "liar" to being a "veteran duck". I mean, this is absurd. Brendon is here 13:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
"Brendon for a second ask yourself why on earth a newbie editor would show up and engage single minded in a community process only"
- I am interested in Islamic affairs and especially Muhammad article and by chance, I visited that Muhammad page, that was after one week of RfC's initiation (I didn't start commenting until a week 9 days after commencement of the said RfC) and if I'm not mistaken, a message was also displayed when I was setting up my preferences or settings or something I honestly don't remember. Brendon is here 12:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes but you made an account on the day it was created. Why did you make an account that day? Your story doesn't add up. You learned about the RfC from the Muhammad page, which you say are very interested in, but you had no knowledge of this situation the numerous times you visited before making your own account? You just innocently happened upon it a week after coincidentally starting an account the day the RfC started? Not likely. Also, how is it that you knew what an "edit-war" was the very first day you started editing? Again not likely. Your reticence to making up a story until now was well founded because the larger the lie gets the harder it is to keep track of or to make sense of. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Valid question. Answer, I really don't know. Guess that's why it's co-incidence, don't you think?
"Your reticence to making up a story until now was well founded because the larger the lie gets the harder it is to keep track of or to make sense of." - you should really tone yourself down a notch. There is no need to get personal. If you had complained only about my incivility I would have never come here. But calling me a "sockpuppet" and a "liar", it's going way over the top. Brendon is here 12:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- It took you this long to be outraged by that part of my comment? This gets better and better as you continue.Griswaldo (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note -- Just in case there is some confusion, Brendon did not initially react this way. His initial comment said nothing about the lie. He edited the original instead of adding a new comment, hours later, to bring up that point.Griswaldo (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have as much free time as you have probably. That's why I missed it. But frankly, I neither expected yet another personal attack nor noticed it at first glance. You are making it hard for me to keep my cool. You're disregarding my every amiable approach to sort this issue out without too much hassle and constantly vilifying me. Yet, you expect me to behave civilly? It's so wrong. The truth perhaps is that you don't want peace. Brendon is here 16:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not enough time? That doesn't seem right. Not from an editor who must have spent a ton of time figuring out all that formatting on his user page (especially given that he claims to be a newbie - I wouldn't have a clue how to do all that) or an editor who spent more time than anybody else at the RfC tendentiously arguing his point, over and over and over again, often in long drawn out messages with all kinds of fancy (and annoying) formatting. At this point it seems that pretty much nothing you claim makes a lick of sense. Keep it up.Griswaldo (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
"He edited the original instead of adding a new comment, hours later, to bring up that point."
- What? Extending my comment is a crime now? I told you, I didn't notice your snarky comments at first."Not enough time? That doesn't seem right."
- Again you invoke your derogatory personal opinions as if they meant something to me.Tell me honestly what is it that I did to upset you so much? Are you here to avenge something? I don't believe that it's only my incivility (because I wasn't excessively rude to anyone except for that one comment to veritycheck, as far I can remember). What is it? Brendon is here 21:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not enough time? That doesn't seem right. Not from an editor who must have spent a ton of time figuring out all that formatting on his user page (especially given that he claims to be a newbie - I wouldn't have a clue how to do all that) or an editor who spent more time than anybody else at the RfC tendentiously arguing his point, over and over and over again, often in long drawn out messages with all kinds of fancy (and annoying) formatting. At this point it seems that pretty much nothing you claim makes a lick of sense. Keep it up.Griswaldo (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have as much free time as you have probably. That's why I missed it. But frankly, I neither expected yet another personal attack nor noticed it at first glance. You are making it hard for me to keep my cool. You're disregarding my every amiable approach to sort this issue out without too much hassle and constantly vilifying me. Yet, you expect me to behave civilly? It's so wrong. The truth perhaps is that you don't want peace. Brendon is here 16:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note -- Just in case there is some confusion, Brendon did not initially react this way. His initial comment said nothing about the lie. He edited the original instead of adding a new comment, hours later, to bring up that point.Griswaldo (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- It took you this long to be outraged by that part of my comment? This gets better and better as you continue.Griswaldo (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Valid question. Answer, I really don't know. Guess that's why it's co-incidence, don't you think?
One small request from Brendon
I think, Griswaldo is repeatedly committing
fallacies all at the same time.
Griswaldo is not quoting me in proper context and is neglecting to post my replies in their entirety. So my request is, please do visit the talk pages (and if needed all other relevant pages which are being cited by Griswaldo) before coming to any conclusion. Brendon is here 11:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes please do go to those pages. You'll see many more examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL violations.Griswaldo (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"You'll see many more examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL violations."
- again you presume what they will find. Brendon is here 10:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
This is not the place
If you have reason to believe of socking I would go and make a case for WP:SPI and let a checkuser or another clerk handle the matter from then on. The accusations made are serious and offensive, whether or not they are true. Wikiquette Assistance doesn't cover sockpuppetry and given the unusual nature of a community RfC that is plastered on everywhere it doesn't automatically equate to a sock puppet. Circumstancial evidence is no reason to go back and forth here, especially since the RfC deals with an ArbCom Case, it is an area in which sanctions can be imposed easily. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Except I didn't bring this here, Brendon did. If he is going to complain here about my suggestion that he's a sock then of course I have every right to explain myself here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- "The goal of this page is to request assistance in moving disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour - users can seek assistance regarding impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors."
This is a place to resolve disputes, is it not? And that is what I am trying to do. So, I believe, for my part I chose the right place.
However, this is not a right place for anyone who wants to continue dispute as opposed to resolving it, which is what perhaps Griswaldo here is trying to do. Brendon is here 09:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
While true. I've had this exact problem before and it is frustrating. Even if you defend yourself it doesn't deescalate the situation. Also this is a matter for WP:SPI. Any issue concerning sockpuppetry or sanctions should be handled by that group and they have the ability to resolve such a situation. If he is, he'll be dealt with accordingly. If not, then you should apologize and try to understand that this issue is very important to him as well as yourself. Even if you do not agree with him, certain responses have caused some personal suffering and we should try to resolve it. If you do not want to go to WP:SPI about it then try not to respond or let it concern you. Let the problem fade away and try not to let it concern you unless you are asked otherwise. You've made your point and this is not a formal process which action will be taken against you. The goal of WQA is to curtail such issues before they become actionable. The topic is a point of conflict for many editors, just please refrain from continuing it here. If you want I will go through the process and we can discuss the matter here. First one then the other. If both of you agree then we can settle this calmly here. Do both of you want to give this a try? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, you can include me in the group of people who are dubious about his origins and believe Brendon to be a Sock. I would support a SPI investigation as he is way too knowledgable for a newbie and basically was created about the time of the RfC and that's where 90%+ of his edits have been too. I have zero doubt that he is a "duck."---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 02:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Balloonman, your certainty is not on par with the evidence available. It doesn't comply with policy of assuming good faith either. Since you're accusing me of being a "duck" (seemingly abusive use of the word). I take it as a gratuitous offense.
It's like also a breach of another Wikipedia policy namely civility. Hence, I don't like your or Griswaldo's approach. This kind of approach may in turn prove to be highly detrimental to Wikipedia. Please change your way of doubting the authenticity of everyone who disagrees with you. It doesn't help. Learn to respond to friendliness of a stranger. At least don't bite the hand of friendship. That's my request. Apart from that, you're free to believe whatever you want. Just refrain from violating any Wikipedia Policy. Brendon is here 12:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your abrasive hand has hardly been one of friendship and you're not convincing anyone.Griswaldo (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly where have I been so abrasive here? I seek resolution that's all. You presumably want something else. It's not my fault. Change your attitude towards others who disagree with you.
- Wikipedia is not about winning or losing. (Thank you for educating me about WP:BATTLEGROUND, Griswaldo) Cheers. Brendon is here 12:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your abrasive hand has hardly been one of friendship and you're not convincing anyone.Griswaldo (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Balloonman, your certainty is not on par with the evidence available. It doesn't comply with policy of assuming good faith either. Since you're accusing me of being a "duck" (seemingly abusive use of the word). I take it as a gratuitous offense.
- Until it goes to SPI and they handle it, let's not escalate the situation further. Two wrongs don't make a right. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know much about this, but I think it is reasonable to suppose that at least a moderate number of people wander into many Wikipedia namespace pages and lurk around; I know that there are quite a few arbitration cases that I have read in full (the case, the evidence, the workship, and the proposed decisions), even though I have never been involved in arbitration. Also, Wikipedia policy is easy to pick up since it is frequently cited everywhere; with enough lurking, it is quite easy to pick up on what kinds of policies are practiced. Also, I agree with ChrisGualtieri that if sockpuppetry is suspected, then SPI is the proper place to take such accusations. It should be noted that since Balloonman was also an opponent to Brendon111 in certain discussions, it is only natural that hard feelings come about.--New questions? 13:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Was pondering if I was going to write anything here since ChrisGualtieri clearly and elegant described the situation above and what steps should be done next, but still I keep seeing arguments and accusations being thrown around. Every time Griswaldo and now Balloonman reiterate their accusations about Brendon, things are made worse. We are not getting closer to resolve the conflict, and rather going farther from the goal. If Brendon is innocent, the result of all those accusations will be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. If he is guilty, throwing accusations around here will only prolonging the conflict and cause more distraction from the global goal of building an encyclopedia. Throwing around accusations on all those talk and user pages will also only lead to Brendon trying to defend himself. So stop, Simply stop. You have voiced your concern and been given instructions what to do next (WP:SPI or leave it to fade away). Nothing can be gained by Wikihounding him. Belorn (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Belorn I really don't appreciate this. Brendon started this discussion. Brendon keeps it going by replying to people's comments. Brendon also continued the discussion on my talk page once I finally left his. It is not Wikihounding to respond to someone who continues a discussion. Belorn, you did the same thing at the RfC. You chastised people for quite logically and naturally responding to Brendon's actions yet you do not chastize him for those actions. Why the double standard? Why are you getting angry at people who are responding to trolling and not the troll? I find that much more disturbing than anything you outline. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yet again, you vilified me by indicating that I am a troll. Why are you doing this, Gris? I asked what exactly is your problem but you didn't reply. You're wiki-hounding me. You started a discussion about me on the talk-page of the RfC about Muhammad's images?? You are instigating people against me (which was subsequently closed by User:Tarc). Why? Why are you attacking me personally this way? Brendon is here 13:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)\
- Griswaldo, you have made your defense and responses to be very clear. WQA cannot impose sanctions, blocks or other negative action on you or Brendon111. This place is to try and resolve problems between editors. Continuing on will only further provoke the situation and offend Brendon111 if he ISN'T what you accuse him of. If you are so convinced of his sock puppetry, please bring this to WP:SPI. Sockpuppet investigations is way in which action can be taken if he is indeed a sockpuppet. If he is not a sockpuppet you have given all the more reason for him to take action against you for ruining Wikipedia for him. As this continues it will push more from 'Don't bite the newcomers' to harassment. Several times we have suggested this go to SPI. Until you bring this before SPI, I'd suggest not further responding to anything Brendon111 is involved in or make any comments about him. This ends with SPI, not with us at WQA. Until then do not fan the flames anymore.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Secondly Brendon111. It is best not to reply to Griswaldo. As difficult as the matter is, WQA cannot take action against him either. The only way in which this will end is if both of you refrain from picking at one another in your posts. We know your stance and we know you have considerable troubles. The accusation of sockpuppetry goes to SPI, if the accusation is untrue then I fully expect Griswaldo to apologize and try to come to an understanding. If you so wish, you can go to SPI and have them check you out. If SPI says you are not a sockpuppet and Griswaldo continues the next step is dispute resolution in which your vindication of sock puppetry is all the background you need to defend yourself. Otherwise the only way in which this problem ends if both you and Griswaldo stop replying to one another's comments. Though it should be noted, if he continues without going to SPI, action can be taken against him. Just don't fuel the fire. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikihounding
- ElliotJoyce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ackees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Portuguese Angola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lloyd's of London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- British African-Caribbean community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Atlantic slave trade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Death of Keith Blakelock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The user ElliotJoyce has, from today begun systematically going through my edits (over many months, even years) targeting them for removal. This is a clear campaign of intimidation and harassment. Often my edits are on politically and historically sensitive pages, about slavery, wars, rebellions etc. ElliotJoyce has accused me of being 'anti-European' when, for example, I have changed racially-charged, colonial terminology such as 'tribal' to the more neutral and accurate 'local'. I have warned this user to stop dogging me. Ackees (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Closing this as resolved as user is blocked, although you are encouraged to report any repeat behavior. If are are unhappy with blocking circumstances you should contact the blocking admin.--Otterathome (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
move requests after recent closings
- Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- In ictu oculi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Denes_Lukacs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Talk:Denes Lukacs This article just closed March 21 (after heated debate) as not to move. Now an editor has made another move request 4 weeks later, adding it to a long list of other moves where it will get lost in the shuffle. Some of those other move requests are fine but lumping this one in with the others seems to be abusing the move request policy here at wiki. I mean what's to stop me from making other such requests every 3 weeks from now on if I don't like a result? That would seem like system gaming. It seems this particular article should be taken off that list. What is the common etiquette for this so I know what I should and shouldn't do in the future.Fyunck(click) (talk) : , 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- The closer of the mentioned "this really needs to be dealt with on a larger scale basis" and closed no consensus despite the fact that there was an overwhelming majority supporting the move. The heated discussion mentioned above came from a few tennisfans wishing to mutilate peoples names as prescribed by their sportbody. Bringing the apparently last remaining deliberatly wrongly spelled tennis BLPs into one RM seems in line with the closers comments of a larger audience. In fact you bringing this here has most likely caused a good few more eyes on the matter. Agathoclea (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's cool that it brings more eyes... but you pulled "this really needs to be dealt with on a larger scale basis" out of context. You'll note the closer also said "I highly recommend that editors refrain from initiating move discussions until such an RFC is completed". That does not mean to lump it together with another multi-move request where the fact it just went through this gets buried. That means to wait until a policy change gets ruled on. We can debate all day about wrongly spelled or English spelled but that was not the purpose of this. The purpose was to get a handle on what is proper etiquette on continual move requests. If we can do it every 4 weeks and that's the norm, then fine. Then I'll know what can be done in the future. It seems very extreme to me. And it also had a move request several months before that if I recall. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agathoclea, thanks for notifying me. I'm not sure how a RM is "etiquette," but happy to answer.
- I notified you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- You forgot to sign it. I assumed it was Agathoclea. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I notified you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ironically it was the above mentioned original Dénes Lukács RM which canvassed my attention. As I would think is clear from my User page my interests are religious history and classical music. I have no interest in tennis (or indeed ice-hockey), but I occasionally watch RM and was concerned about the original Dénes Lukács RM from 3 angles. (1) WP:OWNER behaviour exhibited by User Fyunck (British tennis fan of Polish descent with diacritic removed, according to his stated reasons for deleting diacritics on Polish tennis player Błażej Koniusz) towards User Lajbi (Hungarian tennis fan), both members of Project Tennis. (2) The conflict with WP guidelines such as WP:MOSPN, BLP accuracy, the WP naming convention that states "language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, ..)". (3) preemptive use of redirects on other BLPs showing knowledge of correct spelling enough to create a redirect - which I may be mistaken but seems similar to a recent ice-hockey issue.
- As Agathoclea says, the RM closed with advice for RfC, which was reiterated by Mike Cline and followed at WT:BLP (in my view changing living peoples' name is a BLP issue, although a relatively minor BLP issue compared with more important accuracy concerns). As far as re-including Dénes Lukács on the final tidy up of tennis names. (i) what are we supposed to do, Dénes Lukács has been left to last, but per WP:CONSISTENCY can we leave 1 European tennis player with an anglicized name in among 899,000 BLPs? Why pick on this one? (ii) in any case a move to Dénes Lukács (tennis) is necessitated by having discovered and brought from hu.wp to en.wp Dénes Lukács (colonel) a hero of the 1848 uprising, and the only Dénes Lukács on hu.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Diacritics are not so much a BLP issue because the preference for their real name takes precedent over a non-stage name attribution to a professional standard which effectively bars their name from being properly displayed and carried. If the legal name matches the preferred version by the individual and is upheld with records then the title should have diacritics and the diacritic stripped version should still point back to the disambiguation page as the other two individuals have diacritics in their name. As for going to <name> (field) that should be possible as both the non-diacritic and the diacritic versions should go to the disambiguation page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hostility for someone who kept spamming the Dashboard bashing other people for feedback
- Alligerator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- AbigailAbernathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- User talk:Alligerator (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Alligerator|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
He kept spamming his disgust with the Feedback, I tried to tell him straight out that if he posted on the Feedback Dashboard then we have the choice to reply to him, thus giving him Feedback that he suppositively never wanted. He called me a moron (twice), a "lollipop," and told me I better get checked; insulting my intelligence three times in a row. He called me a "lollipop" after I recommended that he just stop his attacking. --A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Flee. 21:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry, AbigailAbernathy, but:
- You told him 'You're posting on the Dashboard, and we are obliged to reply.'. We are not obliged to reply to all feedback.
- He called your answer, not you, 'moronic'. I am not going to judge if that is a personal attack, but you should have been more precise in quoting him.
- You told him 'If you don't want feedback then don't ask for it.. I do not think this is how the Feedback Tool works: it asks the new user to give feedback on their editing experience; it does not ask them if they want to receive feedback (although I assume they would, if they were confused).
I started helping out on the Feedback Dashboard and I know you get all types of users. My main concern is why would you go back to his Talk page all the time, and not simply letting him be? I have found that focusing on promising users works best, but I am curious as to your motivations. Overall, his edits were sufficiently lacking in quality to warrant constructive criticism; which I assume you gave him. Also, I think your edits overall are high quality - but this dispute may have been preventable with a little more tact, and I doubt is further action is necessary. Regards, Pim Rijkee (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Concur. This a newbie with a single edit -- why prolong an interaction which isn't going well? Nobody Ent 10:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Captain Screebo
This one is a comparatively minor, but also quite straightforward. I don't really feel much offended, but I would like to see it made clear to the user that he cannot continue to interact with others this way. If that doesn't occur, he'll draw the conclusion that he can get by with making personal attacks with no consequences. Struck through. Not so minor, given escalating pattern. Also updated section title to reflect language offered subsequently to an unrelated user.
This AfD exchange was the first time I'd had any communication with Screebo. I've highlighted the objectionable passages in the following:
==== Arbitrary Break 1 ====
- Delete, as stated above by many, per WP:NOTNEWS, unencyclopaedic, trivial and a one-time event in the life of the candidate/dog, which is already mentioned in the Romney article. Enough, already. As to Ohio's claim that people misunderstand WP:NOTNEWS, it clearly states:
- While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion (my emphasis) CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but read the very next sentence for what that clearly means: The examples it gives are, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." Seamus is hardly "routine news". – OhioStandard (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're deliberately twisting the policy to suit your own ends. It does not "clearly state" what the sentence I quoted covers. It just says, "for example, routine news reporting ... is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopaedia", it does not say that these are the only form of newsworthy events undeserving of an encyclopaedic article. In fact, it says most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. To clarify. CaptainScreebo Parley! 10:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Personal attack, much, Screebo? If you can't discuss this without imagining you're a mind reader and without making personally derogatory remarks, then you shouldn't be discussing this at all. The next sentence gives examples of the kinds of things covered by the preceding one; it gives a sense of the scope and range of what is meant by the description, "most newsworthy events". Something that was first covered by Time, ABC News, and The Boston Globe in 2007, and that has been covered repeatedly since, and that has had dozens of articles written about it now, is hardly in the same category. – OhioStandard (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, where, what? You must be paranoid or something (and you definitely come across as supercilious). If you don't understand the use of the English language then that's your problem not mine. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have requested per wp:npa that Screebo should withdraw the preceding insulting comment in its entirety, along with his initial accusation of bad faith. – OhioStandard (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, where, what? You must be paranoid or something (and you definitely come across as supercilious). If you don't understand the use of the English language then that's your problem not mine. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Personal attack, much, Screebo? If you can't discuss this without imagining you're a mind reader and without making personally derogatory remarks, then you shouldn't be discussing this at all. The next sentence gives examples of the kinds of things covered by the preceding one; it gives a sense of the scope and range of what is meant by the description, "most newsworthy events". Something that was first covered by Time, ABC News, and The Boston Globe in 2007, and that has been covered repeatedly since, and that has had dozens of articles written about it now, is hardly in the same category. – OhioStandard (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're deliberately twisting the policy to suit your own ends. It does not "clearly state" what the sentence I quoted covers. It just says, "for example, routine news reporting ... is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopaedia", it does not say that these are the only form of newsworthy events undeserving of an encyclopaedic article. In fact, it says most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. To clarify. CaptainScreebo Parley! 10:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but read the very next sentence for what that clearly means: The examples it gives are, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." Seamus is hardly "routine news". – OhioStandard (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
As indicated above, I also posted a request for retraction to Screebo's talk, in which I civilly explained my objection. He has now made close to 100 edits, including two to his talk page, without responding. This is an otherwise productive editor who just needs to be given a clue to prevent him from continuing in the same way in the future. I would, of course, also like to see him strike the offensive comments he made, as evidence that he does finally "get it". Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- My reply from my talk page, quite honestly I didn't reply as I perceived myself to be more "attacked" by being accused of a personal attack, when there was none.
- The reason I didn't respond was because I have better things to do on wiki than get into pointless squabbles. There was no personal attack, and accusing someone of a personal attack when there is none can be considered a personal attack.
- I maintain that selectively quoting parts of a policy to convey the meaning one wishes is either a) intellectually dishonest or b) shows a lack of understanding of the English language.
- Example "Ben & Jerry's manufacture ice-cream and became popular by offering surprising combinations of ice-cream and ingredients. For example, Strawberry Cheesecake, Cookie Dough or Chocolate Fudge Brownie ice-cream."
- The point being (and what we disagree about), the "for example" just gives a selection of what is being mentioned precedently and does not purport to cover all the instances of what the previous sentence is referring to (as you maintain).
- Finally, here is a personal attack from this talk page, to which I did not respond, as I did not wish to escalate it into drama, a kindly talk page stalker put the person in their place and drama for all and sundry was avoided. Maybe they have different standards in Ohio, or maybe I'm thicker skinned, but my initial comment is nowhere near calling you a liar, I could have used the term "cherrypicking" too, would that have been a personal attack too? No, it's my opinion about your behaviour in this particular instance, I am not saying "crook, liar, thief, fag" am I? Let's just drop it shall we? I would like to get on with editing and not get embroiled in ridiculous arguments, all because some people think Romney's dead dog and its one-time voyage on the roof of his car makes for encyclopaedic material. CaptainScreebo Parley! 11:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- There's neither a need nor a benefit to making the type of comments OS highlighted above -- it doesn't advance your argument regarding the deletion and is inconsistent with the goal of not getting into pointless squabbles. I'd suggest striking them and avoiding similar comments in the future. Nobody Ent 11:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.
- Nobody Ent 11:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Request posted by a different editor, also concerning Screebo
"Great, two fanboy gamer, "i ejaculate when someone sends me a promo video of a soon to be announced game", sites announcing the game. Have you read the notability guidelines or WP:CRYSTAL, sick of linking to them, do some research yourself, and take your trivia elsewhere." at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini Wars. I did call the editor a jerk after he said that to Livitup, but that is indeed being a jerk. No personal attacks is a key policy, but there is no need to be a polite suck up to someone who is this rude. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- To the contrary being polite (reasonably civil, at least), is the expectation for all editors all the time. (Sucking up definitely not required). Generally speaking, if you retaliate with insults to an editor you feel is contributing inappropriate you complaints will either be ignored or sanctions will be applied to both editors. Nobody Ent 11:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
== Gemini Wars ==
- Gemini Wars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: "Gemini Wars" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
Another WP:CRYSTAL, non-notable promotional que sera sera article. Please show the exciting second party coverage to maintain this in article space. CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have just added a GameSpot UK reference to the article. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, very in depth thanks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep—Third party coverage found: [5], [6], and probably more, if I kept searching... Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Great, two fanboy gamer, "i ejaculate when someone sends me a promo video of a soon to be announced game", sites announcing the game. Have you read the notability guidelines or WP:CRYSTAL, sick of linking to them, do some research yourself, and take your trivia elsewhere. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Above, I've reproduced the context of the complaint just posted by user SL93. I've never interacted with any of these editors before; I presume SL93 chose to add to this thread after seeing the WQA notification I posted to Screebo's talk.
It's disturbing that Screebo would make comments like this just after receiving a request for retraction from a different editor over insulting comments in a separate matter. – OhioStandard (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to commend OhioStandard for blowing this out of all proportion, using a scurrilous way over-the-top heading for this section, and also nicely adding background colour and yellow highlighting to make me seem all the more monstrous. As to my comments at the AfD, I have been doing some new page patrolling and also watching some articles (Beez in the Trap, Neymar) which seem to be magnets for fanboy trivia, and people just don't get it even if you try and explain WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:CRYSTAL to them. The general response is "yeah it's on the intertubes so it MUST be in Wikipedia".
- On re-reading my comment from last night, and without being aware that this had been added here as further proof that I am just a foul-mouthed jerk (cheers SL93), I struck my comment and added an apology and explanation for my overreaction. [7]
- Finally, as to the tabloid-style heading of this section, no editor is being accused of ejaculation, "you must be paranoid" is just a surprised reaction at what I perceive to be Ohio's overreaction to a fairly banal comment (compared to, say, being called a jerk or an asshole) and I maintain that it's intellectualy dishonest to cherrypick bits of policy, we all know that the news channels cut and splice interviews to make people appear to say things that they didn't, and all of this without believing that Ohio is a deceitful, baseless person ready to resort to any skullduggery to get his point across. CaptainScreebo Parley! 11:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- If "i ejaculate when someone sends me a promo video of a soon to be announced game" is not an accusation of ejaculation then what is it, exactly? Nobody Ent 12:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)