Misplaced Pages

Query

I see you archived here without answering my question. Your rationale seems to imply that Demiurge's baits and insults should be overlooked, and yet you fail to give credence to fact that baiting, as per the recent arbcom case, is as uncivil as any incivility it causes. I've not been incivil, and I am insulted. Demiurge told me multiple times I was a liar, made fun of my user name, was condescending, and seemed to imply what? That according to ScottyWong's tool I'm a meatpuppet or something? From where I'm sitting none of this behavior is acceptable. Yet no one dropped him word on his user page about it. Can you please explain why not? I'm very curious about the rationale behind this. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not suggested that you are a meatpuppet, nor have I had any intention of implying it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper. I apologize, I did not realize your question was directed at me; I thought I'd made clear I didn't think it was acceptable. I'm a bit disappointed that I was the only admin in that thread to do so, but that's often the case these days, it seems. While you're both here, Demiurge1000: what's up with the hostility to Truthkeeper in that thread? You seem to strongly imply that you'd seen a conversation between her and Kiefer.Wolfowitz and were using Scottywong's tool to perhaps jog her memory; is that the case? Or is there something else going on? Half of the reason Kiefer.Wolfowitz was blocked was for calling another editor "dishonest", so I was a bit surprised to see you doing essentially the same thing in that very thread. What gives? 28bytes (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked here because you closed. Re the allegations, I have no idea what Demiurge means by this edit summary - but the entire episode was one in which an administrator showed a complete lack of good faith toward a non-admin, which in my view is not acceptable. Calling me a liar multiple times,, , , baiting, etc., are all highly incivil, yet was tolerated. It's disappointing and disturbing behavior. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "administrator showed a complete lack of good faith toward a non-admin"... Demiurge is not an administrator. Or you were referring to me? 28bytes (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, for some reason I thought he was. Shows you how little I know (seriously, I don't hang around the boards and such!). Apologize about that. In that case it's less egregious - but still very bad behavior, imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, those comments were not something I like to see from anyone, admin or not. Hopefully that message is clear and there won't be a recurrence. 28bytes (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

KW blocked for calling another editor dishonest? You must be kidding! If he was blocked every time he made such suggestions about another editor, he'd be blocked twice a month and have the longest block log on Misplaced Pages. His behaviour, ongoing, year on year, demonstrates an apparent incapability to deal with just about any dispute without implying dishonesty, incompetence or ignorance on the part of other editors, or engaging in some other snide and childish attempt to belittle them.

He even managed to accuse me of being a liar in the very ANI thread that we're talking about! Looks like no-one chose to do anything about that, I wonder what's up with that?

Now onto this Truthkeeper person. "I've never interacted with the guy", they say.

When then pointed to this link, in which the third entry down shows Truthkeeper replying directly to KW, and the fourth entry down shows Truthkeeper and KW repeatedly posting in the same threads, on a talk page where both of them have hundreds of edits (lots more examples, those are just the ones from the top of the list), Truthkeeper went on to state as bald fact, "I've never interacted with him at all".

Truthkeeper then came to my talk page to raise this "accusation of lying" implication, and then went back to ANI to demand action, and back to my talk page (after I'd long since followed your advice to abandon the ANI thread) to once again claim "I've never interacted directly with him".

I don't want people like that on my talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge - you're flat out wrong. You haven't given a single link to show me interacting directly with KW - because I never have. You might want to give some thought to why not instead of making accusations without being to substantiate them. Above, again, you've accused me of lying. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Now stop looking for drama, go do something useful please. You accuse yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I would indeed call this an "interaction". Now, there are several ways to interpret that. (1) She did not remember that interaction (it wasn't a particularly lengthy one), or (2) she did remember it and intentionally tried to deceive people about it. I find the first interpretation more plausible, frankly. Is there some reason you don't? 28bytes (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there just that one, or do I need to waste more time locating all the others? Do you think she "did not remember that interaction" even after being given links to it? Even if you believe that (which is stretching it more than a little), do you think "I've never interacted with him at all" (my emphasis) is a fair description for someone with whom one is regularly posting in the same threads on the same page, sometimes within minutes (we're not talking about one person starting a very long thread and the other just happening to comment much later), with totals of hundreds of posts each just on that one page? AGF is not a suicide pact. Oh, and I think the sulking when caught out is pretty telling, too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

See, that's exactly what I didn't want to happen. You're both valuable contributors, and there's no benefit whatsoever to be had by assuming that the other party has anything other than good intentions. Things go so much more smoothly when you err on the side of assuming good faith. This whole episode has been very disappointing. 28bytes (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much, it happens quite often I think. I've answered your questions (you've not answered mine!), but I do think this might have been better off defused (or diffused) soon after TK came here, rather than going through this additional round of drama. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, to the degree it was important to point out that Truthkeeper had indeed interacted with KW, it certainly would have been quicker for everyone if you'd just given a link to that RfA talk page comment in the first place, with a nice AGFy comment like "I believe you're mistaken." Why we had to go through all this I don't know. 28bytes (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I posted in this thread, beyond my first very brief one-line clarifying statement, was that you specifically asked me four questions in your first reply to Truthkeeper, above. Nothing more to discuss. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Almost a year ago - a single comment which slipped my mind. Do I regularly interact with him? No, I do not. You're still making accusations and being extremely baitey. I'd like you to stop. Go do something useful - who are you to tell me what to do? Truthkeeper (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The sulking when caught out is bullshit. Go look at the rest of the threads. I became extremely fed up here when last summer I had a pretty bad time when I ran into a very unpleasant editor, FightingMac, and it's only gone downhill since. This was truly the last straw for me. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically right, and technically wrong

After reading up on policy a little more, I discovered that the first part of this was not just your opinion, but was also, technically speaking, correct as per the definition of WP:WHEELWAR. I was distracted from paying more attention to such details because I was dealing with a rather more important WP-related matter at the same time as all that nonsense. The rest of your suggestion, I did manage to follow.

Also technically speaking, your close here was materially incorrect. After Nikkimaria succeeded in gaining consensus for a 2-week block by arbitrarily reducing the block to 9 days, she did not then increase the block to 2 weeks, as you stated in your close, but instead changed it to 13 days. Assuming good faith, we could suppose that was merely a careless mistake. After being informed of it on her talk page, she has declined to correct it to follow consensus. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Demiurge1000, thanks for stopping by. I appreciate you going with my suggestion on that thread. I have some further comments on that in the section above I hope you will comment on. Regarding wheel-warring, yes, it's one of our most misunderstood policies; even arbs occasionally get it wrong, which is both sad and amusing. As to the block... you are correct! On first glance at the log it did look to me like a 2-week block, but after doing the math, it does appear to be 13 days instead of 14. However, I'm going to file that in the "close enough for government work" category; anyone referring to it in the future – especially in reference to that thread – will call it a 2-week block anyway. 28bytes (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)