User talk:68.100.211.222

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, 68.100.211.222, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 16:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Personal attacks

Please don't make personal attacks. [1] and [2] are not acceptable comments on Wikipedia. Please refrain from making them. Thank you. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 16:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

Please stop making personal attacks. Accusing someone you disagree with of "systematically destroying as many articles as possible" is not in keeping with our policies and guidance on civility, assuming good faith and personal attacks. Please comment on the content, not the user. In this instance, please direct comments you have on our notability guidance to the appropriate page, either Wikipedia:Notability or Web content notability. Hiding Talk 19:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What I posted was NOT a personal attack. It is a very serious and accurate description of the user's record as an editor, which has emerged over time and can be documented. This is a matter for the community to consider. I am seeking help from the community in addressing this issue. Clearly, what you are doing by repeatedly warning me is setting up a paper trail to ban me, because you understand how that game is played and I do not, yet. I was willing to leave the matter to the community, so long as my complaints about the user's systematic abuse of Wikipedia's policies and purpose were there for others to consider and discuss, on the user's page, where I believed (perhaps erroneously) was the place to raise such concerns. But the user Dragonfiend deleted the comment, which surely cannot be in compliance with procedures around here. Someone calls your editing into question and you can just delete the question? I'm quite serious about the problems this editor has caused for Wikipedia and webcomics, and a dispassionate examination of their overall record on the matter would reveal to any neutral observer a consistent an unsupportable bias in favor of deletion. You want to educate me about Wikipedia's procedures, SHOW ME THE PROPER CHANNELS FOR RAISING AND DISCUSSING THIS EDITOR'S BEHAVIOR WITH THE COMMUNITY. The pretense of "welcoming" and "educating" you've been presenting to me is insulting. This warn is not even valid by the policies you cite. 68.100.211.222 20:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reason

  • If that's how you want to interpret my actions, then that is up to you. For the policy on what we block for, I would direct you to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, which covers personal attacks. I'd also direct you to Wikipedia:Harassment, and ask yourself to consider your comments and actions in light of that guidance. I am starting to find your tone distressing myself, in all honesty. If you wish to seek comment on a user, you should try WP:RFC, but I'd note you need a second user to certify an RFC and you need to show how you have followed dispute resolution and attempted to discuss the issue with the user. I'm not convinced that you have attempted to do so, or that a second party exists. I'd also note the user has already been a party to an arbitration case regarding webcomics, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics. I would once again ask that you remain civil, and listen when people ask you to moderate your language, and take criticisms on board. I can only reiterate our policy on personal attacks: Comment on content, not on the contributor. I'm afraid that if your incivility continues I will myself consider seeking community input on your comments and actions. Hiding Talk 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This is both the first useful answer you've provided, and the first evidence to my eye that you are acting in good faith. Yes, I know it's policy to assume it, but I saw you support a LOT of deletion arguments in my research. I see that it is true that you did not delete my comments from Dragonfiend's user page. I apologize for making an unfounded accusation. I'd retract it, but Dragonfiend has already deleted it. My accusations against Dragonfiend are well-founded, as that arbitration ruling demonstrates. I'll gather my resources and make a new request for arbitration, based on things that Dragonfiend and Aaron Brenneman (and probably others) have done SINCE that ruling. Sorry you think I am a WP:DICK, but there's much worse trouble than me afoot, and Wikipedia is suffering for it. It has got to be fixed.

[edit] From User talk:Dragonfiend

              • "This user is not manipulating any notability guidance, and actually had a hand in writing it." I spit out my drink when I read that. What exactly did you think I meant by manipulating the notability guidlines? This editor's efforts to RE-define those guidelines and create an absurdly high set of criteria was a major part of the systematic process of webcomics deletionism which the user has been carrying out this personal campaign. Are you suggesting that there are NO processes for considering the entirety of a user's actions over time, in order to demonstrate that an unacceptable level of editorial bias has been demonstrated and prevent the user from continuing to edit? Deletionism may be debatable, but deletionism like this user has pursued constitutes vandalism. I do not mean on a case by case basis, I mean taken as a whole. 68.100.211.222 20:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reason
                • Ah, I see. So contributing to debate is manipulation, and offering an opinion indicates an unacceptable level of editorial bias. Right. What I suggest then is that we also round up everybody else who has expressed an opinion in the exact same afd's, and move forward from there, since they must also all have an unacceptable level of editorial bias. Blimey, I'll cop to having editorial bias right here and now. Editorial bias exists left right and centre, see Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia philosophy. Hiding Talk 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to me to be asserting that the purpose of a user talk page is something other than to talk about the user. You tell me where a pattern of over 100 deletionist edits can be presented to the community as evidence of overwhelming and unacceptable editorial bias. At this point, because of all of your efforts and Dragonfiend's efforts to sweep valid criticism under the rug, I am willing to do the footwork to make that case clear to the community. This user is causing HAVOC and I will find a way to stop the havoc, assuming one exists on Wikipedia. 68.100.211.222 21:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reason

[edit] Okay, I'm done

I'm sorry, but your comment "Presumably it suited the purposes of users Dragonfiend and Hiding to leave the actual violations of policy visible, and suppress the comments which more calmly raised the issues of concern" made in this edit [3] is in clear violation of our guidance on assuming good faith. I am attempting dialogue here with you and yet you are levelling accusations at me which have no substance. I have no control over anyone's talk page. If they delete something from their talk page because they believe it to be a personal attack, they are within their rights. That you cannot assume good faith on my part means that further dialogue between us is unlikely to be fruitful. I will draw attention to this matter in the hope that someone neutral may be able to assess the situation and move it forwards. Hiding Talk 21:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you did something which did not suit your purposes? Why would anyone do something which did not suit their purposes? I didn't say what your purposes were. What were they, Hiding? Why DID you leave the most bombastic posts and delete the most rational? 68.100.211.222 21:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reason

  • I've deleted nothing, so I see no point in continuing this conversation. Hiding Talk 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to receiving communication from a neutral arbiter. But as someone who JUST argued that everyone is biased, don't you find the concept of that a little silly, Hiding? 68.100.211.222 21:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reason

  • Perhaps if you read what I wrote in the context it was written, you may understand the distinction between neutrality within disputes and neutrality within philosophies regarding the direction of Wikipedia. But like I say, I see no good coming from continuing this discussion. You have clearly made your mind up about me after repeated attempts to answer your questions and ask you to moderate your points in keeping with our policies and guidance. Hiding Talk 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)