User talk:Nandesuka/Trolling from Alienus

Your remarks on my talk page.

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Al 16:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Al. As always, I believe I've been perfectly civil. But I do so treasure your friendly reminders. Nandesuka 17:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not being sufficiently clear. The uncivil remark in question was:

It's been my experience that once Alienus decides that someone is part of "the cabal," he doesn't let inconvenient facts get in the way of his dogma. Nandesuka 15:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can see how a reasonable person might consider this uncivil. Thank you for understanding. Al 17:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view that as uncivil. Simply descriptive. Kind regards, Nandesuka 17:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How you view it isn't particularly important. What matters is whether a reasonable person could anticipate that the recipient might view it as uncivil. Consider the case of my humorous comment to Jakew, which he took offense to. Oh, wait, that case isn't parallel at all, because you never apologized and you're not getting blocked for a week. Never mind, I'll have to find a better example. Al 17:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith is not a suicide pact. I don't try to anticipate your reactions as a reasonable person because, very often, you don't act like one. Just to pick one obvious example, reasonable people don't publish an "enemies list" on the top of their talk page, and revert even innocuous or polite comments as vandalism. Your behavior in recent weeks has, in fact, been much improved, which demonstrates that your extended blocks were, at least from a purely didactic perspective, quite effective. I sincerely hope that you can continue to grow and mature in the way you deal with editors with whom you disagree. Kind regards, Nandesuka 17:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, you are pouring incivility on top of incivility. Rather than further engage you, I will show maturity by walking away. Al 17:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know better.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

I noticed the following uncivil edit comment by you: 2006-06-15 19:17:48 (hist) (diff) Circumcision (Rv. nonsensical and barely English.)

Come on, you ought to know better than to do this. As an admin, you're supposed to enforce these rules, not break them. Al 14:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop acting like a troll. I was being perfectly descriptive. The addition was nonsensical, and was barely English. Nandesuka 15:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

Thank you for responding to my civility warning with further incivility, in the form of a personal attack. Rather than waste my time arguing the obvious, I will let your words speak for themselves. Al 19:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you should try doing that more often.

In any event, I'll start taking civility warnings from you seriously, as opposed to treating them like the trolling that they are, when you (a) stop trying to hide evidence of your own personal attacks on your talk page and (b) stop doing things like referring to ArbCom proceedings as "lynchings" and referring to your fellow editors as "snippies." Until then, I treat your warnings as bad-faith accusations from a repeatedly blocked offender. It turns out that we extend less good faith to editors who, like you, have squandered their credibility. If you truly believe that I have violated Wikipedia policies, then I encourage you to open an RFC or RFArb against me. I am confident that any neutral parties examining our respective histories will immediately see your antics for what they are. Nandesuka 19:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

Calling me a troll again is a form of personal attack. Please read the rules that you're supposed to enforce. You'll find that "he called me names first" is not a defense. Likewise, you are violating WP:NPA by claiming I intended to hide supposed crimes when I wiped my page clean in disgust.

Anyhow, this is your final warning. If you continue to personally attack me, I will take the next step. Al 00:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Please stop trolling on my talk page. It's rude. Nandesuka 00:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have called me a troll yet again. This is, in and of itself, a blockable offense. Do you apologize and retract or should I file for a block now? Al 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to take whatever actions that do not violate Wikipedia policies that will result in you stopping your endless badgering and trolling on my talk page. If you feel comfortable filing for an RFC or RFArb or requesting a block for my describing your edits as trolling as such on the very same day that you refer to Arbcom as a "lynching"[1] and a "kangaroo court"[2] and calling fellow editors as "snippies"[3], presumably a reference to their genitals, then by all means go for it. Nandesuka 01:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not content with personal attacks and incivility, you are deleting valid warning tags even while this case is under review. Clearly, you do not respect the rules you are expected to enforce. Feel free to delete this, too, and even call me a troll some more. It's all in the history; you can't hide it. Al 05:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would point out that the warning tags you placed on my talk page are not "valid", because you are placing them in bad faith. Because you are trolling. And trolling is never a valid use of the warning tags.

Second, I didn't delete any warning tags, merely some of the continued badgering you added after your "final warning." Your failure to describe the facts accurately in this case is, unfortunately, not terribly surprising. Nandesuka 05:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

It might be nice to also suggest that he stop breaking WP:NPA through his repeated accusations of trolldom. Just a thought. Al 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]