User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive06

Your Warning

Explain to me how this User_talk:Filll#Your_Accusations is harrassing. And tell me when I called anyone stupid. Because I didnt. The fact that you are suggesting I did shows that you didnt read what I said and/or you just believed Fill's version. Hence, I believe your hasty behaviour was also inappropriate. And as I said in Fill's talk page, I will take it to WP:DR if he doesnt cease his behaviour. [1]It was my last warning to him. Your warning was therefore redundant. Or did you miss reading that part as well? Lukas19 09:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I followed every link and read carefully, thank you for your concern. The three civility warnings, which were removed by another, then replaced by you, in the section Civility (which I removed here) constitute harassment, as you have already been informed. You refer to Filll as stupid twice, in bold face no less, in the section you link above. And finally, one does not "warn" they will take something to DR. The correct course of action is to attempt to resolve things with the other editor(s), and only if that fails, then you simply take it to DR. Its not a warning. My post to you that if you continue to harass Fillls you will be blocked may be taken as a warning however. Please heed it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Saying that race is a myth is IGNORANT and STUPID" [2] This refers to the argument, not to Fill. What do you not comprehend?
Yes, I've been informed. But I havent been explained as why they are harrassment.
One does not warn? Really?

"The editor must have been warned with the npa2, and npa3 templates as appropriate. Reports of unwarned editors may be removed." [3] Lukas19 10:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested DR on your talk page. You state above that you have warned Fills you "will take it to WP:DR if he doesnt cease his behaviour". The "must warn" info you mention and link to immediately above refers to NPA and PAIN, not DR. Two different things. One does not warn before taking to DR. Referrring to someone elses comments as "misinformed" or "incorrect" or "inaccurate" is fine. "Ignorant and stupid", in all caps, or bolded, is not fine. Discuss the content, not the contributor, does not mean calling what they say stupid. It means discuss the article. You are being highly uncivil and inflaming the situation. You are edit warring on another user's page. Do not replace warnings, ever, on another user's page. Doing so can result in a block for harassment. They have seen it. It exists in page history. There is no need to have it stay on the page if they do not wish it there. Replacing them is harassment, and violates talk page guidelines. Please let me know if this is at all unclear. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a typo. If you read my warnings on Fill's page I told him I was going to report him. I was meaning PAIN. I mentioned WP:DP on your page first time because that was your suggestion.
Regarding my comments. I'll repeat what I've said:
"However, I admit I could have worded my comments more constructive but given the quotes such as User_talk:Doc_Tropics#Civility_warnings, give me a break." [4]
I also note that you think:
"You are being highly uncivil and inflaming the situation"

While you do not think any of Fill's comments were uncivil? Please read: Talk:Black_people
I also note that you think: [5]
"Be civil in your dealings with Wobbles and all other editors as well."

But you havent made the same warning in Wobble's page and others (ex: LSLM ..... [6] )
Ok I understand. I didnt know
"Do not replace warnings, ever, on another user's page. Doing so can result in a block for harassment. They have seen it. It exists in page history. There is no need to have it stay on the page if they do not wish it there. Replacing them is harassment, and violates talk page guidelines."

I wish you have told me earlier. Like when you warned me, you could have explained this or given an appropriate policy link instead of simply saying:

"Do not harass other editors. Cease your disruptive and inappropriate placement of civility warnings on Filll's talk page, or I will block you for harassment. If you feel there is a problem, take it to WP:DR. " [7] Lukas19 10:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pasting content from other posts with such abandon. I have formatted your very long post. You are complaining that i have not warned other users. This is a tu quoque type argument. Do not move the focus from "is Lucas being civil and following guidelines" to "Is KillerChihuahua a good and even handed admin?" or "does KillerChihuahua think I am uncivil and think those other editors are not uncivil?" and think the second somehow has something to do with the first. My informing you that you are uncivil stands by itself, and dragging in "well he did it! why dintcha smak him!" is worse than useless. As far as you wishing I had told you other things before I did, all I can say is WP:RULES is a lot of stuff, and I inform as I see necessary and appropriate, and not before.
I cannot stress strongly enough that if you intend to continue posting on my talk page, I will be happy to help you, but do not paste content from other pages, especially my very own post made hours or even minutes before. I am not senile yet, thank you. Be patient with my posts. If they seem terse, it is partly because that's how I type but its worse than usual right now because I seem to have fractured my left forefinger and typing is difficult. thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok what's left to discuss here then? I've told Fill I wont warn him again and now that you've explained to me what is harrassment, I wont revert my warnings. I will also try to word my comments more constructively, though I disagree calling someone's argument stupid is uncivil. Lukas19 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fill, regarding your comments here [8]. I find your "olive branch" unsincere, given your comment [9] which you made AFTER your "olive branch". I said it over and over that I'm offended by such comments given your previous remarks: [10][11] Lukas19 20:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What in your second link is offensive? He says the article "White people" is a troublesome, contentious article. And it is. What on earth are you offended about? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This: "There are a huge number of white supremacists and other assorted trouble makers who are drawn to that page" Lukas19 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well since you're offended, I have to ask - are you self identifying as a white supremacist, or as a trouble maker? Because otherwise there is no reason to be offended. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARE YOU READING THE GIVEN LINKS??? I've given 2 links above (later 2) (and many times in this page and related pages) which includes:

"Or maybe we could just postulate that every scientist who agrees with you and your perfect race-detecting eyes from your position of pure white Caucasian European racial superiority and omniscience is unquestionably correct"

"As I have said over and over trying to get people like you to understand. You can sit there pleased with yourself that you are racially "pure" and you have an eagle eye for detecting those "filthy" blacks who are so different than you, but I think we all know what your agenda is. You have revealed it in ample measure here"

Those are what Fill has said. I'm identifying with NEITHER. But he implies it. Do you finally get it????????? Lukas19 20:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop yelling on my page. I did indeed read those posts; I have responded as I see appropriate. Do not bring up old news. If he posts what you percieve to be an insult or attack in the future please feel free to post a diff here. Do not conflate posts made in the past with current posts to decide someone is referring to you unless they specifically mention you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being so biased agianst me. You are an admin. Lukas19 20:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not biased against you. I am aware of my status as an admin. You are accomplishing nothing by that post. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You are even biased in your definition of old. Check the date. It was today. It was recent. It wasnt mentioned before. Please do not involve yourself in any future dealing with me. You have failed about fairness and objectivity, in this case, IMO. Let's just cease our correspondance here...Lukas19 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you plan to leave Wikipedia, that is unlikely. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should not be surprised. These comments are not directed at Lukas19. Lukas19 seems to suggest that he is the only person besides me who is posting to the black people page. I wish he would calm down before he gets himself in trouble. I wish he would read the other posts. We have had a large handful of self-identified falangists, NeoNazis and white supremacists posting to the page. Lukas19 has not yet self-identified in this manner. I was not referring to him. I will not identify the trouble makers and white supremacists etc by name, but it should be pretty obvious with a quick read that there have been several. Many of the self-identified black and African editors have complained about this for months, and I have to agree with them in some instances. And when I took a quick glance at the white people article, the same self-identified white supremacists had also been posting there and causing trouble. I do not know if Lukas19 has posted to the white people article or not. I do not know if Lukas19 has caused trouble at the white people article since I did not investigate it that carefully. I would again hope that Lukas19 would step back a little. He is taking a bad situation and making it worse. I fear that he views our inaction as weakness. I hope he does not make that mistake since he has much to offer if he would just moderate his behavior a little.--Filll 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Accusation

I see that you called me a troll and advised Fill "Not feeding the trolls" [12]. Explain yourself. Lukas19 09:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the linked page, it seems fairly well written to me. What do you not comprehend? KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the page and I do not comprehend as why you considered me as a troll. Lukas19 10:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, lets be accurate here. What I posted was "I now advise you to not encourage or respond to him." This links to DNFT. Did you read all of the linked page, or only the DNft section? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read all the page and as I said 2 times before, I do not understand how any of the types of trolling applies to me. Lukas19 11:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is KillerChihuahua a good and even handed admin?

You are right. This has nothing to do with my uncivility. However, I still think that you've handled all this poorly. You've given me multiple warnings now and all you've said to Fill was to stop feeding trolls. As per your request, I will "stop pasting content from other posts with such abandon". But please read Talk:Black_people to read Fill's comments. His implications here User_talk:Wobble#Black_People and here User_talk:Doc_Tropics#Civility_warnings in connection with his remarks here [13] (the part about my "agenda") should be considered highly uncivil. I'm not even talking about his baseless accusations explained here User_talk:Filll#Your_Accusations. You also warned me about Wobble while ignoring his own behaviour. You also said I called Fill stupid. But I addressed his arguments. While this may be uncivil (I disagree. We even see diplomats using stupid.), it was still quite different than what you have claimed. Given your other claim that you "followed every link and read carefully", you should have made that distinction. Lukas19 11:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading what was posted above, I am not sure that I should still leave this message. Nevertheless, I will attempt to do so. I think finally after months of effort, I have some crude concensus on the black people page to try to view this as one of a suite of overlapping articles on this general topic. I would hope in the future rather than pointless wasted effort arguing, we could direct energy such as that evident above into actually positive productive work. I am more optimistic about black people than I have been in a while. It seems that finally my message that "people do not agree on the definition of 'black people'" is starting to sink in. I think Lukas19 could be productive, in spite of his own particular bias which is quite evident. Nevertheless, that does not negate the fact that he could definitely contribute in a positive way, if he can just moderate his behavior a bit and be a bit more flexible and willing to compromise. Although we probably have enough material for an RfC, I would like to hold off for now and hope that Lukas19 will use this breathing space to rechannel his efforts towards productive activities on Wikipedia. I do think we could build a strong case against him, but I would rather see if he can see his way clear to using his talents to help us. If we alienate him, or consume his energies in defending himself (which he seems to want to do quite vigorously), we will deplete him, potentially needlessly. I favor holding off for now and giving him another chance. If he continues to cause chaos, then there is no problem in dusting off these past complaints and using them effectively. Maybe I am not tough enough, but that is my suggestion at the moment.--Filll 19:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Lukas19 could be a benefit if he moderates himself somewhat more than he has been doing. He is new; and learning. I merely suggested Rfc as a more appropriate venue as opposed to advocacy. I am (thank goodness!) completely uninvolved with the entire mess of articles regarding Black people, so I will be happy to serve in whatever capacity I can as an uninvolved admin. Please do not hesistate to ask for my view, input, or assistance (this is for anyone involved in this btw, not merely Filll and Lukas19.) I will not, however, babysit any of the articles. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fill and KillerChihuahua...Please move your comments to User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Your_Warning. This section deals with the behaviour of KillerChihuahua, which I believe to be one-sided in this matter...I will answer you in the appropriate section. I believe KillerChihuahua will be happy with this since s/he seems to care so much about the layout of his/her talk page given her comment about me "pasting content from other posts with such abandon"...Lukas19 20:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KillerChihuahua, I still request an answer to the first paragraph in this section. Regarding Fill's comments in Talk:Black_people that I was complaining about, here are the diffs: [14][15][16] [17] and [18] (should be taken in context considering two previous diff)...Lukas19 20:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are still criticising me for what you percieve is my failure to warn others, yes? Criticism noted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Now. Please change your wording of [19]. As I said before, I've never called Fill or anyone stupid. Lukas19 20:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed KillerChihuahua bending over backwards to be very evenhanded and unbiased to the point where to show how neutral he is, he is actually being biased in favor of Lukas19 rather than being completely neutral. --- Skapur 03:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]