| Revision as of 21:46, 16 September 2008 editG2bambino (talk | contribs)19,847 edits →Edit summaries: moving← Previous edit |
Revision as of 05:31, 22 September 2008 edit undoG2bambino (talk | contribs)19,847 edits clearNext edit → |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
'''' |
|
== Your choice == |
|
|
|
|
|
Seeing as the WQA has had no effect on your abusive behaviour, which would you prefer, an RfC/U or another trip on the ANI merry-go-round? ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Irrelevant to me. It's your time. --] (]) 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::True, you have demonstrated quite amply that policies only matter when you decide they do. ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 20:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And, the flimsy nature of the claim aside, that has what to do with your question or my response, exactly? --] (]) 20:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::'Flimsy'? You have violated ] and ] more times in the past week than I can count. And my comment was directed at your 'irrelevant' remark; you clearly do feel that community standards are not relevant to you. They are, sorry. ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 20:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Only according to your opinion, which, I'm sorry to tell you, doesn't matter much when it comes to enforcing policy. As per my answer to your question: there is no policy that requires me to answer your question the way you want me to; so, what you decide to do remains, to me, irrelevant. --] (]) 20:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::And yet there ''are'' policies that require you to not attack and insult other users, policies which you have been reminded of on multiple occasions--including in reference to edit summaries. But you are, for some reason, not required to follow those? Is that what you are saying? ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I follow them as they are written, not as you warp them to protect yourself from criticism or questioning. This is still irrelevant to the question you posed and the answer I gave above. --] (]) 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Lovely, more abuse. Is accusing someone of vandalism a civil thing to say in your neck of the woods? Or how about accusing people of being 'dramatic' or 'seeking attention' or being 'myopic'? These are all civil, polite things to say, yes? ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 21:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Doesn't really matter what I think, does it? You've already come to the conclusion of what constitutes incivility to you (frankly, I believe you have a low threshold, but that is neither here nor there, really). I take it, now, that you will henceforth proceed to ANI or RfC/U, as whichever you choose is of little importance to me? --] (]) 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Reserved section=== |
|
|
You offered cooperation where, precisely? Show me a diff. "Attention grab," by the way, conforms to neither ] nor ], for approximately the same reasons ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 05:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:The discussions themselves are the evidence of cooperation. I didn't say the cooperation was easy. --] (]) 16:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Saying "what are you going to do about the mess you made" and completely ignoring--yes, ignoring, as evidenced by your refusal to answer questions and your inability to understand despite repeated explanations what the fixbunching template does--is hardly 'offering cooperation'. ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 18:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Please don't take things completely out of context; every word I said was for a reason, and there were many different reasons for saying things. But, by saying things to each other in response to what the other said (i.e. having a discussion), we were cooperating, even if the discussion is strained and/or agitated. There are many clues buried within the thousands of words written regarding this incident that will explain why I didn't answer a question, or failed to grasp something you were saying, if indeed I ever did; but, I'm certainly not going to go and sift through all the matter to find specific incidents and offer an explanation of every one; it would take too much time, would simply ignite a tangential debate about the debate, and, ultimately, serve no purpose. I believe that, generally, I spoke as clearly as I could, and, if I didn't understand something, I would ask (that, ironically, was exactly how the whole thing started: my asking you about "fixbunching"). It went downhill because of a number of factors, from my observation: 1) a lack of patience on your part in explaining something to an inquisitor; 2) the adoption of a haughty and derogatory attitude on your part when I didn't gasp what you were saying; 3) a lack of patience on my part in being spoken to like I'm an ignorant peasant; 4) certain weaknesses in my ability to restrain myself; 5) a low threshold on your part for criticism; 6) a weakness in your ability to restrain yourself. There may be more, but that should suffice. And, none of that means that there was no cooperation; it's just that the above factors made cooperation much more difficult that it should have been. --] (]) 19:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I am taking nothing out of context. There is, in fact, no explanation for your complete refusal to answer questions which were put to you. There is no explanation for your complete refusal to acknowledge what you yourself said to me on July 4 at the OoC article. There was no 'haughty and derogatory' attitude; telling you multiple times in plain English what the fixbunching template does was not enough, apparently, to make you understand what it does. I explained with crystal clarity what it does. You ignored that. If you were truly inquiring, it would have behooved you to say "I still don't understand, can you explain?", which you ''did not do'', rather than ignore what I had to say. I find it interesting that in me there's a "weakness" but in you there is a "certain weakness". Not once did you offer a compromise or cooperation, not once did you show--even obliquely--any attempt to understand. I ask you again, why does what you said to me at the OoC article apply only to you and not to me? ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 19:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Also, editing my comments to remove statements that show your incivility is extremely poor form. ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 19:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Well, I can't tell you what to believe. But, the evidence, which is now cemented in Wikipeida's archives, shows a much different reality to what you describe. Perhaps you became confused with my responses when you started to muddy the watters with added issues, losing distinction between one issue and another, and then believing I hadn't done what you expected. I would suspect this is what happened; indeed, you've even started to do so again here already. I would suggest, if my analysis of the goings on is correct, that you order your issues - and I mean with the content, and not with me - and raise them one by one. --] (]) 20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Why won't you answer a simple question? And, again, editing my comments to make yourself look better is extremely poor form. ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 20:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to jump in but G2, I recommend not responding to PoCs comments. I think everyone who reads this know what the intentions are and they are certainly not constructive. (I would also point out that the Administrator who resolved the ANI said PoC should avoid leaving you comments, PoC I suggest you follow ]'s advice on this issue.) ] (]) 20:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, I'm starting to see that no good will come out of it. I merely thought I'd try, one last time. I suppose I have the authority to declare this discussion ''closed''! ;) --] (]) 20:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::No good will come of it because you refuse to acknowledge certain facts. Such as your comment on July 4 at the OoC talk page. Also.. you passed 3RR too, before I did even, so do you really want to have yet another block on your record? ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 21:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
POC (close, eh?) is probably reasonably able to ask you not blank out parts of his comments to make him look better. Blank the whole things, or leave them (I recommend the former). ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:The comments being removed have nothing to do with the discussion; thus I removed those parts, not what was valid and relevant. Your advice, though, is sound, and I've followed it. Cheers. --] (]) 21:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::And 'close, eh' means what, exactly? ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Interesting that what is 'valid' is what makes you look good, and what is 'irrelevant' is what displays your incivility. Fascinating. ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 21:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And, honesty would be a good idea: I reverted what edits of yours to my talk page? I deleted which posts of yours? Lying = bad. ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 21:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===(From PrinceOfCanada's talk page)=== |
|
|
Claiming that I deleted his comments? Lie. Claiming that I reverted his edits to my talk page? Lie. Calling my edits 'test edits'? Lie. "Disruption and antagonise"? Lie. Calling my post to ANI an "attention grab"? Attack. Shall I go on? Furthermore, I thought we were supposed to AGF? If I am promising not to edit his talk page, aren't you supposed to assume that I mean it? ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 22:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:''Assume'' good faith is not ''conclude'' good faith - I already warned you to stop restoring a discussion G2Bambino had deleted from his talk, and you already failed to heed that warning. No assumptions, one way or the other, are necessary. Incidentally, , you did disrupt his talk page and very believably anatagonise him. It would behoove you not to complain about other people's behaviour when you engage in that same behaviour yourself. Your block will expire soon enough, and I hope in the interim you'll realise that when you treat other editors badly, they won't leave piles of praise and respect on your doorstep. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::My bad; I had forgotten that removal. And no, you didn't 'warn' me, at least not unambiguously; you left a comment on my page that seemed to be a general comment on the issue, not a "continue this and I will block you". You're not explaining why, when I am promising to make no further edits to his talk page, you are not assuming good faith on my part. And no, the block will not expire "soon enough"; that there is a block at all, given your bias (as characterized by your insult to me), is ridiculous. That he has not been blocked for incivility and lies is likewise ridiculous, but neither here nor there. Again. I am promising not to make any edits to his talk page. You have no good reason to not assume good faith on my part when I make that promise. ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Incivility and lies, especially lies that have the vice of being true, and incivility that has the virtue of being over with, are not common reasons for a block. Actively edit warring is. So far as I have seen, you have not ''actually'' promised to leave Gavin Scott and G2Bambino alone, only on a condition that assumes something that's demonstratably not true. If you'll leave Gavin Scott and G2Bambino alone, and move on, interacting with them only to pursue new content conflict resolution if it should arise, then I'll be happy to unblock you. But I don't see this, certainly I haven't seen you say it. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 23:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ANI == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. --]<sup>] | ]</sup> 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC) |
|