Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:16, 23 April 2007

Please delete my account. I realize that my edits will remain in history and have no problem with that whatsoever. I simply no longer have any interest in contributing to Misplaced Pages. Lewis 01:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing others' comments

Please do not delete the comments of others from talkpages. If you believe a personal attack has occurred, you can ask the individual to retract them or, if serious enough, you can replace them with <personal attack removed>. Thank you. Rockpocket 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, does this "directive" of yours apply to everyone or just people you disagree with? How about we make a deal. Copy this post, go to eric's talkpage, paste a copy there, and I'll gladly do as you suggest and never delete another's post. Should a policy apply equally to everyone, I'll observe it with enthusiasm. Otherwise, if it's applied unequally, I have no respect for it, and see no purpose in paying even the slightest bit of attention to it. Lewis 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any instance where eric removed another's comments as a personal attack, from a talk-page. Next time he does so, feel free to let me know and I'll leave the same note. Also this "directive" of mine is a corollary to WP:NPA and thus applies to everyone. Rockpocket 02:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, here's the particular instance I was referring to, from the Humanities RefDesk, March 21:

Within one of her posts, Clio the Muse made the following remark:

"Since 1933 the Jews of Germany had experienced a steady escalation of anti-semitic measures: in Austria they came all at once, a combination of official policy and an outburst of years of built-up resentment and hatred by the local Nazi movement."

I was particularly offended by that statement, and responded with the following post:

"Though I'm dedicated to holding true to my word, I must make occasional exceptions. Hopefully I'll never have to do this again. I'd just like to say that I take extreme offence at even the mere suggestion that Nazism and the ensuing Holocaust can in any way, shape or form, be rationalized, even to the slightest degree, as being the result of some sort of "outburst of years of built-up resentment". The admittedly harsh treatment of the German people meted out by the Treaty of Versailles is in no possible shape or form an excuse for Nazism. Hyperinflation, exhorbitant war reparations, economic chaos and the disdain of the rest of the world may all indeed be a real bitch, yet still are utterly unacceptable rationales, unworthy of mention, in examining the rise of the Third Reich. Many other peoples have undergone far worse treatment, yet never sunk to such levels of unprecedented inhumanity."

Despite the fact that I never even refered to the author by name, Eric decided upon himself to remove my post.

I asked him to explain his removal, and he basically told me that even without so much as mentioning her name, I somehow stil managed to personally attack her:

"Loomis, in answer to your question, i removed your response because it provided no value to the reference desk, and was merely a transparent attempt to continue this ongoing campaign of yours to malign another editor."

Basically, my post was removed either because he believed that I had somehow personally attacked her without so much as mentioning her name or commenting on her as a person in any way, or worse, because he simply disagreed with what I was saying.

Should I take it that I'll be seeing a note at his talkpage sometime soon? Lewis 04:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a few comments to make about this Lewis. First of all, as far as I'm aware I have never visited the humanities Ref Desk (where I assume this comes from) nevermind commented there. So I think it is quite unfair of your to suggest I am applying policies in a biased manner.

Secondly, I have no idea what the humanities desk culture is like. As far as I'm concerned, both your and Clio's comments appear to be opinion or OR. An expert source for either position, rather than individual interpretations, would be much more useful for the OP. Moreover, had either you or her reported that "Historian X believes..." there would be no issue of personal attacks, as it would not be personal. That said, by its very nature I expect the humanities desk is less source driven than other desks and so I'm not really in a position to express an informed opinion of what is the accepted norm there.

From the debate below this appears to be part of a personalised longer-term disagreement. If I was aware of the details of that, it may alter my interpretation of both your comments. But that caveat notwithstanding, taken in isolation I don't see why your comment should be removed as a personal attack. Just as I don't believe your removal of Jack's comments should have been. If eric thought it was, he should have written <personal attack removed>, just as I asked you to above. If you had requested admin assistance at the time it happened I would have gladly assisted and asked of eric the same I asked of you. However, you didn't and this happened a month ago. I'm not about to dredge up a month old disagreement simply to prove to you that my comment was borne of bias. As I suggested above, the next time he does so, feel free to let me know and I'll leave the same note. Now, you can either take this as evidence I am biased or you can note that issuing warnings for old transgressions is never done on Misplaced Pages. Your choice. Rockpocket 00:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you! Sorry for the sour tone of my original message, it's just that I'm not used to admins who actually speak in such a respectful manner and make sense! As such, I have absolutely no problem with fully cooperating with you, and taking your comments seriously. As you requested, I will no longer delete the comments of others. And of course Eric's actions were too far back to be acted on. The only thing is...I happen to be blocked at the moment! Doesn't look like I'll be doing any deleting anytime soon even if I wanted to! Since you seem so refreshingly sensible, I'm just curious as to your take on the discussion below between myself and Friday. Thanks! Lewis 02:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we are on the same wavelength now. I've had a read all the way through this page and its quite difficult to follow. I'm assuming from the references to other incidents that there is more to this block than simply the deletion of the comments I refer to above. With regards to the issue personal attacks, I would concur with the sage words of JackofOz below. For example, in my reading of this page I noticed a comment you made to Jack: "The friendships you seem to have developed with those so utterly beneath you such as Rockpocket...". Now you seem to have come to a very strong - and negative - conclusion on my worth based on virtually zero interaction between us. That seems pretty unfair to me, and it is my natural reaction to say "screw you". But if I responded in like to every person that makes some unpleasant comment about me then how can I ask others to respect our rules? So, I'm going to ignore that comment, because I can't control what other do, but I can control whay I say and do. I'd urge you to compare and contrast this scenario with the attacks that were made on you and your response to them. Do you see the difference?

That said, I don't quite understand what you want. Do you wish to be unblocked? I only ask because you appear to have stated that you want you account deleted and that you are leaving Misplaced Pages. If you do wish to be unblocked, you should make an explicit request and another independent admin will review it. I'm also willing to discuss the issue with Friday on your behalf, and see what can be done. But, to be honest, I can't see any admin being quick to unblock you until you drop the "I was only responding" and "I will not respect rules unless everyone else does" arguments. Rockpocket 21:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, Rockpocket. I'm not sure exactly why, but I seem to have mistakenly lumped you in with the others. From the way you speak, though, you're apparently a fair and conscientious admin, and so I apologize and retract any previous negative statements about you. It's true, I've actually never even come into contact with you, and as such, I really don't understand why your name would come to mind. Just a snafu on my part, I guess.

So here's the situation: I've been personally attacked some 100 or so times over the last six months, without one peep out of any admin explain to those who have attacked me that they were in breach of the WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL guidelines. Not a peep. Nothing. I understand that you guys have your own personal lives to live and are doing this voluntarily. As such, I don't expect yo to catch every violation, and I never have. What I don't understand, though, is why my responses to such personal attacks are watched like a hawk. Had anyone ever made it clear to any one of my attackers that they too acted wrongly, we would never have got to where we are now. They'd realize that they'd made mistakes, just like I realize I have, and they'd think twice about attacking me over and over and over again.

As for my position about being unblocked: Well look at Friday's description of his blocking me in the first place, speaking of me like some sort of terrorist, who'll only stop complaining "if his demands are met". If my "demands are met"? My only "demand" is to be treated with the same respect any other editor is treated with. My only "demand" is that those who attack me be treated equally as harshly as I'm being treated. Basically, my only "demand" is for just a tiny bit of fairness from the admins. I'd love do be unblocked. But only if a couple of small, but necessary improvements were addressed. What I do not wish is to merely be unblocked and thrown back into the same lion's den I was blocked from.

In short, if some necessary improvements are made, I request to be unblocked, and promise to be on my best behaviour.

However, if those necessary improvements remain ignored, I have no interest in being unblocked, as I have no interest in once again participating in a project where WP:NPA except upon Lewis remains the governing guideline.

As I said, I don't expect you to catch everything, that would be impossible. However should I catch one, and an admittedly rather mild on at that, would it be so much for that user to be given the slightest of reprimands from an admin? That's all I'm really "demanding". I just used the latest and clearest instance as an example. After one of my posts, Vranak entered the following three words: "You are boring". Now that particularly juvenile remark pales in comparison to some of the truly hurtful remarks, yet all I "demanded" was, for an admin to post in the most delicate of words: "Please do not tell another editor that he is "boring", as, though mild it may be, it is still a clear personal attack."

However, as I've said, I've been attacked some 100 times. Being refered to as "boring" being the least of them. I think I'll just do bit of research to give you clearer examples.

I'll be back as soon as I can with the full salvo.

Once again, sorry lumping you together with the rest, I'm really not sure why that happened. Lewis 17:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Lewis, an important difference is that you've been showing really bad judgment on what is or isn't appropriate to delete. If you think this is a double standard, you're right. Misplaced Pages has a double standard on purpose: reasonable actions are treated differently than unreasonable actions. Friday (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this somehow account for why Clio (amongst others) is basically allowed to dish out the most vile of personal attacks upon me without even the slightest of criticism, whereas eric is allowed to delete an entire post of mine that disagreed with hers, yet never either explicitly nor even implicitly consisted of any personal attack on her in any shape or form? And now you're preaching to me about "bad judgment"?

For example, just the other day, in response to a post of mine, Vranak responded with three simple words: "You are boring." How would you describe that statement? Is it just me, or was that pretty much the very definition of a personal attack? If you caught that one, yet decided that in your judgment it didn't amount to a personal attack and didn't warrant a comment on his talkpage, I'd say that it is your judgment, not mine, that is sorely deficient. But maybe you missed it because it was just so short and so unimaginative. That's perfectly understandable. However, now that it's been brought to your attention, I would only expect that it would be a mere matter of common sense for you to bring to his attention the fact that he was clearly in violation of WP:NPA and insist that he refrain from such personal attacks in the future. As I said, it's a mere matter of common sense. Yet should you decide not to act, it would be equally a matter of common sense as well as the clearest of proof that you actually consciously condone personal attacks upon me.

Put yourself in my shoes. Can you honestly tell me that if you were expected to be civil and polite at all times, yet the admins openly condone others making the most blatant of personal attacks upon you, you wouldn't be any less frustrated by it all than I am? And what do you think is driving all this admittedly disruptive behaviour of mine but the sheer frustration of it all? C'mon Friday, be honest with me. I've said it before and I'll say it again. The answer is so incredibly simple. All I ask for is to be treated with a minimum degree of respect, and only that same minimum that I'm expected to treat others with. What I just can't understand is why that simple, modest request is considered so unreasonable. Hopefully you'll acknowledge and understand, and as a responsible admin, put in your best effort to finally make it clear to the rest of the community that they're expected to treat me with the same degree of respect as I am expected to treat them. Otherwise, can you really blame me for being deliberately disruptive in an environment where the admins openly condone and perhaps even encourage others to treat me with no respect whatsoever, yet where I'm expected to behave in a completely respectful manner towards all others? Of course you can't. I'm sure you'd react in very similar fashion. Lewis 01:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh c'mon Friday, that whole "rant" tactic for dodging a convincing argument is getting really tiresome and so, so transparent. Can you at least explain to me how the above nicely structured, completely on-topic (we were both talking about "appropriate behaviour" and "good/bad judgment" were we not?) three paragraphs can in any way be characterized as a "rant"? Of course not.

In any case, you obviously read the part about Vranak personally attacking me by responding to a post of mine with the three words: "You are boring". Yet you didn't consider that obvious violation of WP:NPA worthy of even acknowledging, much less actually commenting on his talkpage about.

Basically, in answer to my question as to whether you condone personal attacks upon me, your answer seems to be a clear "YES".

That understood, what possible respect do you honestly expect me to have for you or your opinions?

None.

Friday, you are boring. Lewis 04:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In case it wasn't apparent, the thing that turned me off about your statement was that you didn't even get through a single sentence without mentioning the alleged crimes of some other editor. Your latest response is just more of the same. How is this relevant? You don't need to respect me; you're allowed to ignore me or tell me to buzz off. What you can't do is be persistently disruptive. Friday (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not? I suppose there's some guideline against it. But why should I have the slightest bit of respect for any of these guidelines when I'm never afforded their protection?

You speak of "alleged crimes". Vranak just told me "you are boring". Why do you so stubbornly refuse to accept that in saying that, Vranak breached a guideline?

You say my statement "turned you off"? Why should that be of any relevance? It's so, so, so, simple, yet you're being so unnecessarily stubborn about it for no apparent reason. Why do you consider it so completely out of the question to ever, just once, recognize a glaringly obvious personal attack upon me, and act upon it by issuing a warning? Friday, what you're doing is letting your personal pride get the better of you, and worse, you're putting your personal pride ahead of what's best for Misplaced Pages. It's so incredibly simple. Issue the warning, and the disruptions will cease. Stubbornly refuse to issue it, and in doing so stubbornly refuse to show me the respect I deserve, and I'll stubbornly continue to be disruptive, stubbornly refusing to show Misplaced Pages the respect it deserves. Please don't consider this as any sort of "threat". Just consider it a statement of reality. It's simply unrealistic of you to expect me to show Misplaced Pages the respect deserves, if Misplaced Pages (through its admins) stubbornly refuse to show me the respect I deserve. Lewis 14:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem. You're going out of your way to make everything a personal issue. This isn't about you or me- your issues won't be solved until you see that. By the way, your extortion attempt is ridiculous. "Do what I say, and I'll stop being disruptive"?!? Sorry, that's not how it works. We're not here to play silly games like this. Since you seem to have no intention to stop being disruptive, I've extended your block to indefinite. If one day you decide you want to contribute constructively, let us know and I bet someone will unblock you. Friday (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, the guideline says NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. I'm not making it a personal issue, it's a personal issue BY DEFINITION. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Get it? I'm not demanding that you do as I say, all I'm demanding is that you DO YOUR JOB. How is demanding one to do his job "extortion" in any shape or form?

If one day you decide you want to contribute constructively, let us know and I bet someone will unblock you. I'd been contributing constructively for a good part of a year (Approx.imately 12/05 to 9/06). Take a look at the history and you'll see that I continuously volunteered my time to help others, and they appreciated it. Only then did the personal attacks begin, and only then was I no longer able to contribute constructively.

You say: "If one day you decide you want to contribute constructively, let us know and I bet someone will unblock you." I'd like nothing more than to contribute constructively once again AT THIS VERY MOMENT. But the attacks MUST END. It must be made clear to everyone that just as it's unnacceptable to personally attack others, it's equally unacceptable to attack me. Yet you seem to interpret my "demand" that I be accorded the same amount of respect as anyone else as some form of "extortion".

As I said, I'm ready at this very moment to begin once again to contribute constructively. It's all up to you, not me. When you're finally ready to do your job and afford me the same amount of respect as anyone else, then I'd request you unblock. But please, not one moment sooner. Lewis 18:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in this latest tells me that you're ready to put old disputes behind you. Quite the opposite in fact. As for doing my job, we're all volunteers here- we can't make these kinds of demands of volunteers. For what it's worth, I did notice Vranak's comment and I do consider it inappropriate. However I also had bigger concerns with his editing behavior, so I addressed those with him instead. Riding herd on disruptive editors is a bit like fishing- you don't catch all the fish. Misplaced Pages is not consistent. We might want it to be, but there's no real way to make it so. Friday (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know why you'd say that. Do you actually think I'm enjoying this? As I said, for the good part of a year I thoroughly enjoyed contributing to the RefDesk, also for nothing in return. It was only when the insults began to mount in such enormous quantity, and with such a surprising and puzzling lack of response by the Admins that I admittedly just lost patience and responded with attacks of my own, which of course were condemned by the Admins in the strongest of words. Don't you think I realize that you too do this voluntarily, and have your own real lives to lead? Do you really think I intended my remark above to be some sort of threat? I'm no vandal, and I have no intention of intentionally disrupting Misplaced Pages.

I told you that I'd completely understand that you can't catch all the fish. Especially those that slip by unnoticed. I never expected Misplaced Pages to be 100% consistent. At the same time, though, I nevered expected such an outrageous level of bias against me. I'd say that over the past six months I've been personally attacked, let's see...somewhere around a hundred times. Yet for some odd reason that I have yet to understand, all those 100 fish got away. However finally, for the first time ever, you've actually acknowledged that one of them actually exists! And that it's indeed not all in my imagination! That's definite progress!

You tell me that I'm going out of my way in making this a personal issue. Well jeez! I'm being insulted left and right and the admins are actually consciously ignoring it! How else should I take a personal attack, if not...well...personally? Yet you continue to refuse my request for the most symbolic gestures of respect possible, that being the submission of a remark on another's userpage, one that you already admit to believing, finally acknowledging to others that it is indeed wrong to personally attack me.

Yet you continue to accuse me of turning an otherwise non-personal issue into a personal one. I can't help but suspect that in saying that, you're "projecting". You're basically letting your personal dislike of me govern your behaviour as an admin. But rather than admit that you're the one that's letting his personal feelings govern what should otherwise be a impersonal issue, you're basically projecting your "over-personalizing" onto me. Be honest. You're obviously not refusing my request because it's in any way unreasonable. Rather, you're refusing it to save face. It's a matter of personal pride. Understanding that, let me assure you that if you finally decided to put your feelings aside and "do the right thing" by accepting my request, that would not, as you might imagine, be regarded as a sign of weakness. Rather, their isn't a surer sign of strength of character for one to find the strength to rise up from all the petty nonsense and simply "do the right thing". But please don't rush. Take your time to think about this one. I'm in no particular rush to get unblocked. Take your time, and do what your heart tells you is the right thing. As I keep on saying, it's just so damn simple. Do the right thing, and I'll certainly do the right thing as well.

On the other hand, if you prefer to come across as a small, petty, vindictive little man who is far more concerned with his pride than he is with doing right by others, please, by all means, keep me blocked as long as you wish. Lewis 01:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just more of the same. Now instead of "Do as I demand and I'll stop being disruptive" it's "Do as I demand or else you're small, petty, vindictive, blah blah." I'm done trying to reason with you- you're obviously not interested in reason. However, as always, I invite any other admin to overturn this block if they think it's appropriate. Doesn't look like I'll be the one to do it, though. Friday (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Resonse to What's happened to you, Jack?

Hello Lewis. The apparent rift has also troubled me. I've been tossing up whether to send you a private email, but until I knew what I wanted to say I couldn't make a start on it. Thanks for providing the opportunity by reaching out.

Much of your message troubles me. Along with some of your recent posts to the Ref Desk Talk page, it seems to indicate that your internal world and mine are very different places, which doesn't bode well for any kind of ongoing friendship. Nevertheless, it's now fully accepted by the scientific community that men and women are from different planets - and they seem to get on ok, so there's hope for us yet. I always live in hope. I hope that, after you’ve read and absorbed the following, you’ll still have respect for what you so graciously call my wisdom, kindness and generosity of spirit. But I have no control over that. All I can do is put it out there and see what happens next.

One of the things that has confounded me recently is knowing just where you're at. You left the Ref Desk with a message on your user page; then you said you were leaving Misplaced Pages entirely to go to a different site; then you came to the Talk page and urged others to leave Misplaced Pages as you had done (Leave! For the love of God leave!); then you engaged in discussion with others on the Talk Page; then you removed your user page entirely; then you continued to engage in discussion on the Ref Desk talk page; and now you're talking to me as if you and I are just ordinary fellow Wikipedians, and interceding on behalf of another Wikipedian - yet your user page remains nowhere to be seen. (I may have the sequence of events wrong). I can't see anything wrong with any of these actions, in isolation. But together, to me, they paint a picture of a man who is not grounded, at the present time. I find it extraordinarily hard to relate to or have reasonable communication with people in real life who seem to present different faces, or contradictory positions - which may help to explain why I've been avoiding contact with you for a while; I just don't know which Lewis is turning up here from day to day. Is it the one I formed a good bond with, or some other Lewis? I hope you can see my dilemma. And now you seem to be seeing a different Jack, too. Has Jack changed so much, or at all? Or is Lewis viewing Jack through different eyes? Proust said that the voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having different eyes. Is your voyage of discovery concerned with discovering me, or discovering yourself? I have no idea what the foregoing means, I just felt compelled to put it down as it came to me.

About A.Z. - what can I say? He and I exchanged messages some time back. There were always friendly relations between us, we have some things in common, and at a personal level I've never felt any way towards him other than warm, welcoming and friendly. My last message to him prior to yesterday (this, in response to this from him) invited him to come to my talk page at any time to talk about anything he wanted to. He's yet to do so, and I have no problem with that. Yesterday, I sent him this, but I’ve not had a chance to look at his reply yet because I’ve been busy writing this message to you. A.Z. has never revealed his age to me; all I know is that he's studying at university, which could make him anywhere from 18 upwards. But I think age is irrelevant here. We can't be in the business of adjusting our responses based on a user's age - unless they tell us they're a child, for example. The basic assumption I work on is that other users are adults – (btw, 18 is the age of majority in most places these days, so A.Z. is not a "boy") - and I treat them that way and expect to be treated that way in return. That doesn't mean treating them harshly, just equally, and everyone here expects everyone to be responsible for the words they write here.

Without rehashing my exchanges with A.Z. about personal opinions etc, what I would say is that I was a little frustrated by his apparent mercuriality (if that's a word). One time he'd present an argument for one position, then next time he'd present an equally strong argument for what seemed to me to be a diametrically opposing position. As I said above, I find that very hard to deal with, and it did get under my skin to a degree. This was particularly the case when he interpreted my support for a longstanding Misplaced Pages core policy as being "harmful to Misplaced Pages". That came close to hurting me, but I kept the lid on as much as I could. If some steam was escaping, that tells you how much my blood was boiling. However, I don't believe I've ever been uncivil to him, made a personal attack, or assumed lack of good faith. The intensity of language can vary quite a lot without reaching those boundaries, and I do my darnedest to stay within the zone. Although he seems to write English better than a lot of native speakers, he says he has difficulty with both expressing himself and understanding others in a written English environment. I took him at his word, and went to some trouble to keep him responsible for his own argument, explain where it was being illogical and contradictory, and pointing out what I thought may have been a fundamental misunderstanding on his part, the meaning of the phrase "personal opinion". He responded fairly robustly to all my posts, until the discussion was stopped and archived. My last post was to tell him that his argument that all opinions are opinions about oneself was a non-argument. I was rebutting his argument, not personally attacking him. I believe in saying what I have to say as concisely as I can, generally speaking (this post is a good example of an exception); if this is sometimes interpreted by others as terseness, and further interpreted as rudeness, that is a matter for them. It’s often tempting to try to divine the mood of a writer, as if we are with them in the same room and can see their body language or hear their voice tone. But we can’t do this. And I don’t have to almost apologetically put a smiley at the end of each and every strong, assertive statement I make, to ensure that the reader is not offended. If a post is strictly about the topic, as mine was, it is folly to make the leap into making it out to be a personal criticism. OK, I know this is not an exact science and the edges are rather fuzzy, but those are the kinds of guidelines I work by. They’ve served me well, and I don’t propose to be changing them any time soon.

Back to A.Z. At no time did I get a hint of any hurt being caused. He has never said that to me, either on the Ref Desk Talk page or in a personal message to me. Why he would make these statements to a third party, and not to me, is a mystery. Not knowing what he has said to you, you would appreciate I am in absolutely no position to respond. In any event, I would respond to what he actually says to me, not to any third party. As for him being "extremely sensitive" - I don't doubt that for a moment, but again, how is it reasonable to be required to take such a thing into account when framing one's responses on a Misplaced Pages talk page? Should we be required to tippy-toe around people we perceive to be extremely sensitive? No, certainly not. If responses are civil and to the point, and don't break any guidelines, they're perfectly acceptable. If he's so sensitive that he has a problem with that, then ... he has a problem with that, and it's something he's going to have to resolve, both here and, more importantly, in the real world. I'm sure he's beautiful, too - Brazilian men have a well-deserved reputation. The best I can hope at this stage is that A.Z. reads this and derives some benefit from it.

One thing you need to understand about me, Lewis. It is simply not in my nature to ever intend to hurt anybody, here or anywhere, about anything. But I’m human (I know this may come as a shock) and I sometimes make mistakes. I’m always happy to apologise for anything I’ve done wrong, including any offence I have unintentionally caused, and have done so a number of times on Misplaced Pages. I do it in real life all the time. In some cases, ongoing heated disgreements lead to a decision to permanently distance myself from particular people, rather than continue a pointless and ultimately damaging dialogue. But that’s rare. There’s only one Wikipedian I’ve had to make that decision about in the 4 years I’ve been hanging around here, and he's unlikely to be anyone you’ve ever had dealings with.

Now to the most troubling part of your message:

• "I was just skimming over the above posts with utter disbelief. The friendships you seem to have developed with those so utterly beneath you such as Rockpocket, Ten, Clio, Friday, eric, and so many others, along with the animoosity that's developed between us, as well as between you and the two remaining (used to be three in that it included you!) truly decent people here, A.Z. and Stu, makes me wonder if the brilliant and kind Jack that I used to believe existed truly ever did."

Lewis, I don’t regard any other human being as being beneath me. We are all equals. What people may do or say, and who they are, are 2 very different things. I’ve said this to you in previous messages, but you don’t seem to have accepted it.

To concoct an extreme example: if one of my sons murdered someone in cold blood and I was the only other person who knew about it, I would urge him as strongly as possible to give himself up to the police and take the consequences, and if he failed to do so very quickly, I would report him. I could not possibly condone his actions, and he must be subject to the law like everybody else. But would I stop loving him unconditionally for even a millisecond? – not a chance. It’s his behaviour that I would be holding in contempt, not him.

Basically - and I simply don’t know any kinder way to say this - you have a colossal hide to think that you can decide for me who I should associate with or not. I make absolutely no apology for daring to have friendly relations with people you have had disagreements with. There are no sides here. I'll say it again: There are no sides here. We’re all on the same side – Misplaced Pages (ever heard of it?). If you can’t accept that and make Misplaced Pages your main focus, then maybe it’s best you stay away until you can. And when I say "stay away", I mean "stay away" - totally, absolutely, no popping in from time to time. I don’t say that lightly, but I do say it genuinely, as a friend.

Further, if you think I will for one moment agree that there are only 3 decent people here, you’re monumentally mistaken. Who are you, or anyone, to decide whether any particular person is "decent" or not? You’re still not separating people from their actions. Stop personalising everything, and stop labelling people, no matter whether in positive or negative terms.

You may have genuine grievances about being subjected to sanctions that others who’ve done worse things haven’t been subjected to. I accept that, and agree that it doesn’t seem fair. But how is that any different from real life? You get nabbed for speeding, but the car in front of you was going 20 mph faster and they weren’t nabbed. That’s unfair, but that’s the way it is. The point is, you were speeding, you broke the law, you were caught, and so you pay the price. You just have to cop it sweet and assume responsibility for your actions. Going on about how others have got away scot-free gets you nowhere, except to be seen as a whingeing trouble maker. They’ll get their just desserts in due course – have you ever heard of karma?

I just have to interrupt you here for one moment, as words such as "racial profiling" and "prejudicial law enforcement" come screaming to mind. Ever heard of those? (And when I say "racial", I mean it only as an analogy, I don't for a moment actually think that my "race" is in any way involved here). But do you honestly believe that it's just "karma" as you put it, that time and time and time again, it's only my car that gets nabbed, and never the other one? "Luck" and "coincidence" have their limits. There comes to a point where one must face reality that there's a persistent bias in the system that needs to be adressed.

If I could remake history, there’s one comment I made recently that I would say differently - "There's really nothing in the foregoing that's worthy of any response". That was poorly worded, and it led to your opinion of me being lowered. I’m sorry for that outcome. It’s not that I didn’t care that you felt you were being wronged by previous goings-on, but that I didn’t see it as my personal responsibility to fix the problem. I was annoyed by the "Leave! For the love of God leave!" heading and what initially followed it; which is why I said you couldn’t have it both ways. Meaning, either leave and stay away, or remain here and contribute in a positive manner. I was further annoyed by "I, Lewis, hereby promise never to return here again, EVER! Except now and then when I feel like it." To me, this was trivialising and mocking the very issue you were raising. How can you encourage others to leave, and in such melodramatic, almost panic-stricken language, but at the same time choose to drop in whenever it suits you. How was that acting with any sort of integrity or consistency? What sort of game were you playing? Is it any wonder some people don't take some of your genuine posts seriously, because they see you as the boy who cried wolf? These were the questions in my mind at the time (and to a large degree, still are). It seemed to be a classic case of "Do what I say, not what I do". That’s what my post was about, but I was just over it by that stage and didn’t have the mental energy to say any more. (Yes, even I, your personal guru, get tired and depleted sometimes).

It's a shame that you didn't catch the fact that that line was meant completely as a parody of how I'm treated by the admins. "Do what I say, not what I do" is actually a perfect way of expressing it.

This has been a long post, probably the longest I’ve ever posted on any WP page in 4 years. To that extent, you can regard it as a compliment to you that I would take the time and trouble to say what I have to say so comprehensively. I hope it will serve a positive purpose.

Please go back to the start and re-read it before doing anything.

Best wishes/Jack.

JackofOz 05:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You do realize, of course, that if it were I who just wrote this, it would be no matter its sensibility or the truths it may hold, it would invariably be dismissed as an "incoherent rant". Yes, I will read it over and think about it before even attempting any full response, but for the time being, try and imagine if I had responded quite simply:

"Jack, the foregoing is no more than yet another incoherent rant of yours, and as such I see no point in responding".

You see, I too am only human. Though this may sound reminiscent of a Shakespearean soliloquy, trust me in that that fact only occurred to me after I had thought it through in my head. If you (not YOU, but the general "you" as in "one") insult me, I get hurt and can't help but insult you back. If I'm then reprimanded for the insult but you're not, I can't help but get frustrated. If I try to explain the unfairness of it all and you further insult me by telling me that my explanation is but a mere rant, not worthy of being read, I can't help but get incredibly angry. Not only have you lowered me to subhuman status by basically making it clear to all involved that I'm unworthy of the protection granted to everyone else by the WP:NPA guideline, but now you're basically telling me that I'm an insane retard retard who can't write in coherent English. Take a look at the above exchange between Friday and me as the perfect possible of examples. Now multiply that by about 100 and you might get at least some idea as to what the past six months have been like for me here at Misplaced Pages. Have I been acting irrationally? Of course! Though you may think better of yourself, faced with the same continuous abuse I'm sure you'd behave no more rationally, for sch irrationality would be the natural and healthy response of a human being being treated with the utmost of disrespect. Lewis 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Lewis, you have reached this point by taking comments from other users far too personally. And you continue to do so. No one is out to get you, or intentionally offend you. You may not believe this but it is how most of us have seen this whole issue from the start. If you take everything too personally you will forever be running up emotional dead ends. Don't waste your valuable time doing that, in wikipedia, or life for that matter. David D. (Talk) 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I get hurt and can't help but insult you back - yes, you can help it, Lewis. That's the point you keep missing. NPA means "no personal attacks, not even if provoked". Children retaliate in kind, but adults are expected to rise above such things. If you retaliate in kind - and I'm not saying you have, but you seem to be saying you have - then how can you then complain about the original attack? There are always many good ways and many bad ways to respond to a personal attack. The choice is yours. JackofOz 00:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack, once, in a fit of rage, I placed a rather awful remark on your talkpage. Coming to my senses and realizing the absolutely rotten thing I'd done, I couldn't even get a proper night's sleep. The next day I begged you to remove it, as the very sight of it reminds me of the monster I had momentarily descended into being. You graciously deleted it.

But now I see it's back. The only reason I can possibly imagine for its reinsertion is to hurt me. And I am indeed terribly hurt by the very sight of it. I see you made your choice, a terribly hurtful choice indeed.

Just imagine Jack. Just think of those several, extremely personal emails of yours regarding the sowing of your wild oats in your youth. Well I'll tell you this much. Whatever the outcome of this mess, those emails will go with me to my grave. Not a soul on Earth will ever know what you told me. NEVER. I guess that's just the kind of man I am.

And you dare lecture me on how I may respond to a petty insult? You dare challenge my character based on some silly Misplaced Pages nonsense? You dare reinsert that terrible momentary lapse of judgement that you know full well haunts me to this day? Despite it all, what you told me in confidence will go to my grave. That's the kind of man I am.

Though it would be great to continue having you as a friend, it would appear that the "mentor" aspect has come to an end. Here I am, blocked from Misplaced Pages because I dare object to the fact that I'm not treated in as equally respectful manner as anyone else, and here you are, detailing line by line what I did wrong, and how I deserve this shit.

If you had even the slightest clue as to the kind of man I am, right now you'd be frantically writing to Friday, explaining to him why I don't deserve this abuse, rather than writing to me here, trying to explain to me why I do.

Well I've had enough Jack. Write to me any time about any matter whatsoever, be it politics, philosophy, religion, or just to share a good laugh about a good joke you heard. The only matter that I have no interest in hearing about is your assessment of my character, my principles, or my behaviour. I now KNOW the kind of man I am, and I'm damn proud to be that man. Lewis 01:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Lewis, can you please tell me exactly which post you are talking about? I remember that matter very clearly. I did as you asked, and removed your post as soon as you asked me to. I have never reinstated it, and can't find any evidence of it still being there. Maybe the software has done something odd that I'm not aware of. JackofOz 07:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Lewis we both removed our comments here: , David D. (Talk) 07:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then what the hell is this? Someone put it back there! If not you, then who? Lewis 10:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

First I wrote: You're both of course right. In fact I'm embarrassed by what I wrote above, and I'll delete it immediately. Anchoress was correct. I truly need to take a good time away from Misplaced Pages, as perhaps with some time off, I'll be able to return to contributing the way I had a good year ago. Hopefully all of this wil be nothing more than a bad memory. I'd implore you to delete your response as well, but since it's what you wrote, it's up to you. I realize that my apologies aren't worth much these days, I just hope that you can forgive me for now, as I haven't quite been acting myslef lately. Loomis 12:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Loomis51"

I could swear, then, that the very next thing I did was go off and delete it. And then you two went off and deleted your responses as well. Either I've gone totally mad, or perhaps someone out there is somehow able to fiddle around with the history in an effort to drive me mad. In that case they've succeeded.

But I can swear to you the God's honest truth that I removed it. Or perhaps you removed it as you said. In either case it was removed. And now it's back. Something very strange is going on. I can't make any sense of it anymore. Lewis 11:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Lewis, there seems to be some confusion. The thread in question, the one initiated by you on 2 April, was headed "Untitled discussion". I responded to your post, and you in turn apologised and asked me to remove "my response" (not the whole thread). I did that immediately. This all happened on 2 April. I have never reinstated it, either on my page, yours, or anywhere else. I had forgotten about it till you raised the subject yesterday. The post headed "Get yourself a backbone, Jack!" was an entirely different thread, and I don't remember you ever having asked me to remove it. (I've corrected the link to that thread in your post above, because your link wasn't correctly pointing to it). Those are the facts.

I'd now invite you to withdraw your disgraceful attacks on me above ("Jack, once in a fit of rage ..."), and apologise to me. JackofOz 01:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologize to you? You keep telling me to stop "personalizing" and to take things in stride and now you're requesting an apology? Do you have any idea what it feels like to be insulted relentlessly, and for no one, not even your closest friends, to care enough to back you up?

Well perhaps now you do. For the time being, whether you deserve an apology or not, I'd like you to know how it feels to be insulted, and for everyone to tell you to "be the bigger man". So "be the bigger man" Jack! Swallow this insult just like I've been forced to so many aimed at me.

In the meantime, here's another of Clio's gems for you to ponder:

Above all, please remember that Nazism, before all else, was a political movement, not a collection of strict eugenicists. Clio the Muse 02:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. A political movement, "Before all else". Like the Tories, the Whigs, the Republicans, the Democrats...just another "political movement". The whole bit about gassing and cooking 6,000,000 Jews was but a silly afterthought, I suppose. Hitler must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed that morning. Oh Adolph! You're so silly! Lewis 18:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

December

Apparently I'm:

1) Intellectually Ill-Organised;

2) Some of Quite Offensive in its General Emphasis;

3) A Bully;

4) One who descends into verbal tantrums maligning me and deliberately misleading this whole community;

5) One whose actions are actually illegal as they "Justify Action in the Civil Courts" (yay! I'm Criminal too!)

6) One who's posting contains "poision";

7) One who utters "loathsome forms of verbal intolerance";

8) One who is among those "Petty-Minded Bullies";

9) A person who is quite capable of shifting from one extreme to another, without being aware of the insight that gives to his character and personality.

Wow! Nine personal attacks in one post! I think I'll have to revise my increased my estimate from the original 100.

Hmmm...Any admins see a personal attack in there? No? Of well, that's but the tip of the iceberg!

Lewis 20:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)