User:DangerousPanda/WGB

About this page
This is an attempt to clarify, discuss and vet issues that have arisen between User:Wiki Greek Basketball and User:Coffee. This is an informal attempt to either clarify a dispute, or help clarify the issues for an WP:RFC/U if needed.

Note: this page is intended to help diffuse a situation. Although I acknowledge that some other editors may read it, I would ask that only WGB make responses here. I also ask that editors do not use responses by WGB on this page against him.

The issues
Issue 1: I applied for an RFA and I guess I was in the wrong in doing so. I guess I am very unqualified and that I did not deserve this. I got many negative responses but user:Coffee was IMO out of line and overboard. Requests for adminship/Wiki Greek Basketball
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

My responses
First, let me start off by saying that I do not believe that voluntarily trying to become an admin is a bad thing. Indeed, based on your history of edits, it might not have been a bad thing. Although some self-nominations are successful, it's rare. Remember that editors will be looking for specific behaviours - any recent (or sometimes even past) incivility is downright frowned upon. Sometimes going through an editor review is not a bad idea before thinking about RFA (although it's pretty poorly followed), or even though I personally don't like admin coaching, many people do see it as a good idea. Those are ways to determine if you have the right aptitude, skills and knowledge. However, attitude is always one of the key points being looked for.
 * The first diff appears unrelated to your RFA. It's related to a following section, and I'll deal with it there
 * On the second diff "pile on": at the point that Coffee !voted, you had 0 supporters and 21 opposes. Additional oppose !votes are truly "piling on" according to Wikipedia vernacular.  One thing you have forgotten: Coffee actually linked to what he considers to be his requirements to become an admin on that vote.  I'm sorry, he was being helpful here IMHO.
 * The community will see nothing wrong with Coffee's comments here, as they were polite and validly linked to his admin requirements so that you would know for next time.
 * On the third diff "rain man": If you recall the movie, Rain Man was brilliant. You had already bragged about your 197IQ, so you claim to also be brilliant.  I know I addressed these questions once before.  The questions that were asked appear to be a direct response to your statements that you were so smart that you deserved the admin role.  You actually had a chance to show your sense of humour here: those questions (and variations thereof) have been asked in other RfA's, and taken as the humour opportunity that they were offered in.  Honestly, if your whole argument for deserving to be an admin is "that I'm smart", then you're going to get smart-assed questions.  They are not uncivil!  They are a direct response to you using your IQ as a quality.  If you took it as an insult, perhaps that's because you see Rain Man as an idiot, and not as a genius?
 * The community will (and already has) seen nothing wrong with those OPTIONAL questions, based on their past existence in other RFA's.
 * On the fourth diff "the more humour the better": it merely emphasizes the above intent for humour. Plus, by the time you already had 20 to 0 !votes, you should have voluntarily accepted the early closure - pile-ons are considered to be embarassing for the editor, and nobody wants to see that happen as it will permanently affect future attempts at RFA.
 * The community will see your decision to let the RFA run as opening yourself to further negative evaluations, and will give WP:AGF towards Coffee even moreso, as he clarified his attempts at humour.
 * On the fifth diff "extreme maturity issues": again, this is a common comment in RFA's. This was an edit to his original vote, based on the continued discussion.  Please be honest with yourself: when an adult is faced with criticism, they learn from it, and do not fight back.  Coffee added these comments to expand his original !vote, and are a discussion of your attitude, based on your edits.
 * The community will have no issue: obvious signs of mature editing and responses are key to becoming an admin
 * On the sixth diff "Larry King": you made a reference to relativism. In your personal opinion, you would be a better admin than someone else, therefore you deserved it.  Coffee made a similar relativistic comment.  There is no sign of incivility, merely using your own logic against you.
 * The community will see no problem whatsoever with Coffee's response, and will in fact see your post above it as "arrogant".

Conclusion for section in my humble opinion
Your RfA was doomed from the start. By saying "I'm so smart, I deserve it", responding later that "I would unequivocally make be a better admin than you", you were assuring failure AND assuring additional negative comments. When this became obvious, another editor kindly tried to close it on your behalf. Coffee's responses throughout your first RFA were in line with other comments on the RFA, and on other RFA's. At no point was he uncivil towards you - indeed, I believe that others might have been more harsh.

Discussion
I added my IQ AFTER my intelligence was insulted. Not BEFORE. Also, the point of wikipedia rules are not for certain people to interpret if someone was insulting another user or "just joking". He insulted me, he did not joke. Because if that is the case then no one ever breaks site rules. No one would ever need to be banned. They didn't do anything actually, they just "joked". Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see anyplace where your intelligence was insulted. Your editing skills, maturity and attitude were discussed, but not insulted.  So many times people said "answer Q1!!!", which you never ever did.  They wanted to understand if you knew what being an admin entailed!  You are WRONGLY comments as insults, and this is a major issue here.  You continually did not learn from the comments, and let your personal readings of things interfere.  Coffee was helpful - others were actually more harsh!
 * I know you fail to see the problem here, but that does not mean that it does not exist. Coffee numerous times insulted me and it was over the line. He broke site civility rules. That is a fact. What you and others have chosen to do and apparently what you falsely believe site policy is.....is to simply interpret the actions and motives of others. Either good or bad. But that is not site policy when it comes to civility rules. Just telling me over and over that I am wrong and don't get it means nothing to me, when in fact I am being objective about this and others are being subjective about it. It does not matter if others think Coffee's behavior is fine, because regardless it is violating the site policy on how to interact properly with other users. As to me answring questions I was not able to do so. Every time I tried to respond my RFA was closed. Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You were never insulted by Coffee in any of the links you provided. None of them.  They did NOT violate WP:CIVIL, or WP:NPA.  Show me one place where they violated those exact policies.  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue
I made en edit to someone's RFA and he removed it and claimed it was pointy. It was not. It was a legit edit and I was expressing a legit concern and this was even explained by me in detail to him and on also on the page. On top of this he had already voted in the same RFA, which showed he should not have done that. Also, he was told not to do that by a bureaucrat and he still did it anyway. Requests for adminship/RL0919
 * 
 * 
 * 

My responses
I will start off by stating that voting in other RFA's is a good thing. Ensuring that you properly evaluate candidates against OBJECTIVE criteria is vital. Reading and evaluating gave me a better understanding of a) how to answer an RFA correctly, and b) what I needed to do better to eventually become an admin.
 * In diff 1 "striking your oppose", we have to back the truck up. Your oppose was the very definition of WP:POINT.  You stated that you opposed and would continue to oppose anyone against subjective criteria: your own failure to pass RFA.  (NOTE: you need to understand the difference between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN - you have never been BANned, only BLOCKed).
 * The community agrees that POINTiness has no place in Wikipedia. We have had editors blocked in the past for that type of response in RfA.
 * In diff 2 "Coffee is a God": welcome to your worst personal attack. You went too far.
 * As above, pointiness plus incivility is a bad, bad combination. If you had questions about people questioning your maturity on your own RFA, you proved them right here.
 * In diff 3 "bureaucrat steps in": the bureaucrat is right, they effectively stated that your comment was pointy, and that they were smart enough to see that and discount your vote.
 * The community will not see this as incivility by Coffee. The striking of obviously pointy comments elsewhere is an administrator's role.  Although it was unnecessary in RfA, it was not evidence of any problem.  Edit-warring over it was NOT a good thing for either of you.

Section conclusion IMHO
You were pointy, and stated it in your oppose. You then stated that you would disrupt any other RfA's by being just as pointy. Coffee did not need to strike the oppose, but he did. Again, not evidence of a problem with Coffee - it takes TWO people to edit war, and you were one of them.

Discussion
Once again you interpret other's motives and intentions. I was not being pointy. I have read that page numerous times and my vote was NOT pointy. It is only pointy if you assume and presume to know what my intentions and motives were. Now I explained it in detail on that RFA page and also in a user talk page what my reasoning was. And it is NOT pointy. I know you cannot grasp that your personal belief of my motive or intention might be wrong, but that is not my problem. Again, nothing on the page about point is relevant to the vote I made. You can state a billion times that it is, but it is actually not. As for the edit war, I did no such thing. I made my vote. It was improperly stricken. It was noted as such by a bureaucrat. I added my vote back. I was then threatened with a month long block by Coffee. So clearly I did NOT "edit war". I have read the wiki page on edit warring now numerous times and I certainly did NOT edit war based on what that page says. I realize now what I did not before I first applied for an RFA - that the wiki pages on site rules are completely ignored and not followed. I also realize that the site rules are simply being enforced not on the actual pages as they are written, but instead simply by the interpretations of individual users. Well that is not my problem. I am interpreting them based solely on what they say. If a page says for example such and such is uncivil then that is what I take it as. I do not interpret the intention and motive of the other editor. I don't need to be lectured on how I should be acting subjectively just because everyone else seems to also be and just because group think is cool to some people.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no other way to read your comment: it was the DEFINITION of pointy. Not-justifiable, and is validly considered disruptive. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue
I then received a message on my talk page from Coffee that if I reverted his edits I would be "banned for 1 month". Please take note that my comments were not pointy as I explained them and why I voted that way and what my feeling was. That it was a legit reason of my thinking and belief. That a bureaucrat told him not to do it and he did it anyway. That he had already voted in this RFA and he then sent me a ban threat after all this.
 * 

My response
This is a continuation of the above.
 * On the diff: although you were possibly edit-warring regarding the re-adding of the stricken !vote, "banned for a month" would not normally be the standard response. Edit-warring - on a first case - might be a day or 3 of a block, not a ban.  Coffee DID invite others (besides you) to undo his striking, and you should have let it be done by someone else.
 * This so far is the only possible "issue" with Coffee's actions so far. It would be taken by the community as an error in the thought process or interpretation of the block policy and nothing else.

Section conclusion, IMHO
This is your only well-founded issue so far, but would never be held against Coffee as something actionable.

The Issue
I then filed a complaint against him.
 * 

Response
I don't think I need to say much more about this. You filed an ANI (which by the rules is NOT how you complain about an admin anyway, as noted at the top of ANI). You had zero well-founded reasons for complaint, you attacked other neutral parties, accused people of collaborating against you, and based on your angry responses got a short block to prevent additional disruption. This was a bad idea overall. Sometimes you need to know when to back away slowly. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 16:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The escalation

 * 1) Issue 5: This escalated out of control and I admit that I got very angry and very frustrated and that I was out of line, I allowed him to get under my skin and to accomplish his goal all along which was to lure me into getting mad and thus getting banned. I should have not fallen for it and I deserved my ban. However after a week long ban, I returned and I was unfairly put up again for a ban request. Due to the previous conflict I guess. Once again Coffee started with the incivility directed towards me for no reason at all and of course supporting a ban of me when I did nothing wrong.
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 * 1)
 * This is typical of what I am dealing with from him, there have also been other instances (several) on my user talk page.
 * my take
 * what I expect the community to say