User talk:Black.jeff
December 2011
[edit]
Personal attacks and edit-warring
[edit]Since there seems to be no resolution in sight, I have raised the matter of personal attacks and edit-warring on Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes at WP:AN/I. The discussion is here. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Anything can be easily misinterpreted regardless of how nice it is worded, it just requires one to read into it. For example, your comment can be misinterpreted to mean that I am an evil bigot that is trying to make people uncomfortable and not edit Wikipedia. However, I know that is not what you meant. Similarily, my comment could be misinterpreted as a personal attack, but it is a simple statement of fact. His actions were vandalism. He claims to patrol wikipedia for vandalism to prevent it, not create it. He should check his own actions and make sure what he is reverting it to isn't far worse.Black.jeff (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm just trying to say that your frequent accusatory descriptions of vandalism can be construed as personal attacks, and thus, you risk having other people be reluctant to accept your help, or even risk being blocked for inappropriate or uncivil behavior. Simply because Materialscientist reintroduced false or incorrect information with his reversions does not automatically mean he was deliberately trying to vandalize the article. It is critically important to assume good faith, otherwise no one will risk putting their faith in your edits, up to the point of blocking you.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- So if someone decides to go and put pictures of dicks all over a page we should assume good faith? I don't think so. There is a time when it is good faith, and times when it is clearly not. This was the latter. If he bothered to read the edit description and the edit (as anyone who is trying to stop vandalism should do), then he would have realised reverting it would be bad. He was lazy. He couldn't be bothered editing the page to remove the section (which could have been assumed as good faith), instead he just reverted the page back. There is no grounds for good faith there, unless he was very new to Wikipedia, which is not the case. If he is not willing to put in the time and effort to make sure his edits are constructive, then he shouldn't be patrolling Wikipedia. If I was new I probably would have left the page reverted with a horrible lie which he would have helped maintain. You should be warning him to play nice, not me. And even after that I didn't jump to accusing him of vandalism. I explained my point on the talk page, which he appears to have completely ignored, again for someone as experienced as he claims to be, this is simply laziness. I have no reason to assume good faith for him. I have reasons to assume bad faith, not so much that he is intentionally trying to make Wikipedia bad, just that he doesn't give a damn if he does.
- Additionally, what frequent accusatory descriptions of vandalism? You mean where I claim that editing a page to represent a myth (which makes no sense and is contradicted by the derivation steps listed above it) as a fact, after it has been explained that it is a myth and the problems with it, is vandalism? If someone edited the page on Santa Claus to make it appear as if Santa Claus was a real person, would you call that vandalism? Calling vandalism vandalism is not a personal attack. More importantly, how is it frequent? You mean that one time I posted it on his page, and then defended my actions here?
- You know what else could be construed as a person attack? You saying that I am frequently accusing people of vandalism.Black.jeff (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)