User talk:Jodon1971/Archive 2

Reported about MarnetteD
Hello Jodon1971. I have already reported about MarnetteD's behavior to User:Master of Puppets. He has already helped in stopping Tenebrae's personal attacks on me and I believe he will help you too. I request you to add your comments there and solidify this case. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There were no personal attacks, KahnJohn27, as evidenced by the fact your attempt at an ANI against me was dismissed. I had told you I was tired of having a high-school student ranting at my talk page, and asked you not to post there again (which you did not heed). You say you are a high-school student in the very first words of your user page. No one made you put that there, and you're free to remove it. But you cannot make a self-descriptive claim and then say others are "attacking" you for using that same description. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi KahnJohn, Thanks for your message. I had seen that User:Master of Puppets was assisting you now. Wish I'd had someone like that to help me in the early days. I'd say you couldn't be in better hands.


 * I'm not sure why Tenebrae is here, as his comments should properly be addressed on your talk page and have nothing to do with me. And your help request has been answered.


 * As regards MarnetteD, I've only had a brief incident on one article talk page, hardly a solid case. I just picked up on her "attitude" to you on her talk page and equated it with my own experience, and wasn't happy that she wasn't giving due consideration to less experienced users. This is a character flaw that neither she nor her "wiki" friends seem to acknowledge. I said an apology from her to me would go a long way, especially if it was genuine and not condescending, and I would certainly forgive her iniquities and believe that she had some redeeming qualities. However I don't expect that to happen, and won't get too worked up over it. Such is life, or more to the point, such is Wikipedia. Having said that, I do have some reservations about this "community", but we'll keep that discussion for another time.


 * Don't let this experience discourage you from future edits, and as Bluerules said; "keep fighting the good fight". I hope we meet again under happier editing circumstances! Good luck! --  Jodon  |  Talk  23:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You are yourself beating a dead horse Tenebrae. While you have said they were not personal attacks you are yourself saying you dismissed my comments as rants of a high school student. Anybody can easily infer that your making an age related remark which is a personal attack. It is in similar manner saying such as ramblings of a kid or ramblings of an old man. Admins had told you to stop making personal attacks and the case was not dismissed but closed. Also you said that you will improve your behavior. However it does not seem so. Now it however seems you're trying to take some personal vendetta. I told you to not to comment on my talk page but you could comment if you thought it was important. Wikipedia policies only state that a person should try to refrain from commenting on a talk page. They are not obliged to do so. That's because the message might be important. Trust me I would never have deleted your comment. Either way you could talk about this on m.o.p.'s talk page. I don't favor not talking to a person just because they insulted me. I always favor talking face to face in order to help them and try solve the matter peacefully. It is always better to talk face to face sice it generates a mutual feeling of respect and responsibility. Please I ask you to comment on my talk page if you want to. Please know that I respect you and would like to let mistakes of the past remain in the past. KahnJohn27 (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Jodon1971 please note that the statement of Tenebrae you pasted at my talk page are the same type of statements which MernetteD keeps on calling "wall-text". Also there is no wall-text but of wall of text which is defined as an attempt to shut down a noticeboard or talk page with massive amounts of text in massive kilobytes. And the edits she has dismissed as wall-text are no attempt at all to shut down her talk page but mere proofs. Also I have already said and I'll like to say it again that she has again that she has again misrepresented my statements. Not only that she has misrepresented those upon hearing which any person would like to commend the honesty and truthfulness of the user who made the statement. Gotta say it's the worst misrepresentation I've ever seen. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything you've said, KahnJohn. I think Tenebrae could have very easily chosen a more neutral word than "rant" and still got his point across. It would not have been difficult at all for him to use the word "talk" or "discussion" in place of "rant". The same goes for MarnetteD, there was absolutely no reason in the world for her to use "wall of text" in place of "comment". I was stunned when I found out that what it meant had constituted not only disruptive editing, but as you said an intention to shut down a discussion, which wasn't the case at all!! She assumed bad faith!! I've always edited in good faith. And I always want to talk about things if there's a problem. But, she was the one who wanted to shut down the discussion by throwing "wall of text" at me. How ironic and hypocritical.

This type of behaviour only heightens one of my many concerns about Wikipedia that "senior" editors get favorable treatment simply because of their "status". See how my comments on the ANI are hidden and marked "unrelated", despite both yourself and MarnetteD being on topic. This dismissal is a sign of disrespect as it means that my voice is rendered inaudible and my comments are invisible. But being this is my first time on an ANI I will take that on the chin and chalk it up to experience, as I did with MarnetteD.

Furthermore, I've noticed other senior editors in other disputes strut about like pompous peacocks shouting "oh look at me! Look at how many edits I've done! Look how many barnstars I've got! I'm better than you! BLAH BLAH BLAH" - This is the type of arrogance that is (to me anyway) completely unacceptable, and in itself ironically constitutes a bigger "disruption". My other concern is that people like MarnetteD who demonstrate short-temperedness do so either because they've been editors now for far too long and are now very weary of dealing with newcomers, or that it is a personality issue in which case they should restrict themselves from "talking" on so-called "talk" pages as they seem unable or unwilling to communicate with any degree of diplomacy or understanding. I always assume people are courteous until I find out otherwise, and unfortunately I found out that MarnettedD was otherwise.

It is also true that people must be more careful in choosing their words as there is room for misinterpretation. I agree with what you said about talking face to face. I was in a situation recently with a relative of mine, and while talking to him on the phone he said something which I (found out later) misinterpreted but took offence at. However, having spoken to him face to face a few weeks later we agreed there had been misinterpretation. We also agreed that the cause of the problem was because we hadn't discussed it one on one, or face to face. Interesting, that even talking on the phone is insufficient for clarity of communication. A facial expression, a tone of voice, context, and understanding of the use of wording all contribute to a proper, or improper communication.

I had no dealings with Tenebrae and as such have no personal quarrel with him. It wouldn't be fair on the 3 of us to have his involvement in our discussion continue here. If he answers here again I will make the request to him to continue his discussion off my talk page, unless he makes it relevant to here.

I could go on, but now I have to be constantly vigilant of ever being accused of making a "wall of text" again. Ha ha!

Regards. -- Jodon  |  Talk  11:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Jodon, I hatted your comments on the ANI discussion regarding KahnJohn for a very good reason. You attempted to bring your own personal issues with MarnetteD into a discussion of another editor.  This is an inappropriate practice; instead if you had issues with MarnetteD, who is a man, BTW, you should have started a thread regarding that issue at the appropriate location, not inserted it into another discussion, thereby potentially taking the discussion off topic.  When that happens in ANI discussions, the common practice is to hat the unrelated content in order to keep the discussion on the designated topic.  If you review ANI and its recent archives, you'll see that's done fairly routinely.  It has nothing to do with you, just the approach you took to addressing whatever issues you have with MarnetteD; you seem to prefer dropping posts on others' talk pages and inserting your issue into another discussion rather than dealing with the issue directly, and hatting is the consequence when you do so in an inappropriate place.  --Drmargi (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Drmargi for the taking the time to talk to me here, and clearing up a few things. You are most welcome here, as is any editor who wishes to talk to me. I take everything you say as a reasonable explanation. I apologize if you deemed my own input inappropriate. I also apologize for getting MarnetteD's gender wrong. People were calling him "she" and I thought "Marnette" was a girl's name. I acknowledge my mistakes and I apologize. -- Jodon  |  Talk  13:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. You and Kahn are youngish editors and you could really profit from working on not taking things that happen here too personally.  Master of Puppets has good advice regarding how to handle conflicts, and you'd do well to listen to him, and to work with him.  Editors rarely act personally, but rather in compliance with policy and/or in the best interest of an article.  It's a win-some/lose-some prospect when you edit here, but it's rarely personal.  Take a deep breath and think before you act, and you'll be OK.  --Drmargi (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Drmargi. Likewise to yourself.
 * Jodon - I've spoken with MarnetteD. Ultimately, he agreed to this: if you don't mind extending an olive branch on Marnette's talk and apologizing for weighing in on a discussion which wasn't quite relevant to you, he would be willing to retract the fly comment.
 * As I told Marnette - you are not required to do this. It's just meant to ease some of the tension that's been caused by a few choice words used during heated moments. If that happens, we can focus more on editing and less on the 'he said/she said' game. Best, m.o.p  18:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

MOP, I appreciate the time and effort you're taking with your involvement in this and hope it hasn't been too unsavory. I'm sure like the rest of us you hope this doesn't drag on. I also appreciate that you don't want to get into a he said/she said scenario. However this goes beyond a mere "fly comment". Its more of a "general attitude" problem. Before I extend an olive branch I would like to get this off my chest, if I may, so that you at least can understand my reservations. I will try and be as brief as possible, and apologize in advance if it is a difficult read.

I have looked at the most recent post of MarnetteD's page. You are quite right in saying that I am a frustrated editor, and only in relation to the contribution I wanted to make to the Clockwork Orange page. I was deeply offended by the dismissive attitude displayed towards me then, and yes, my present concern about MarnetteD is derived from that one incident. Other than another unrelated incident that was successfully resolved with the help of another editor, my experience as an editor here has been generally positive, and my only interest is in continuing to make it so. I would have gone merrily along my way if I hadn't observed MarnetteD making an outlandish remark on his talk page to another user:

"anyone who claims that they "are trying to do the right thing" is clearly trying to "enforce their view" of what is right"

Yes, I probably snapped, due to the earlier frustration. So I called that remark "Bullshit" (i.e. complete nonsense of a smelly kind). I proceeded then to ask MarnetteD what kind of "twisted" logic was being used to justify such a statement. I also said "That means everybody who tries to conform to Wikipedia policy (do the right thing) is "enforcing their view" of what is right on other people (even if "their view" is not consistent with Wikipedia policy)!"

The word "Bullshit" was used in the context of the discussion, and NOT as a personal attack. I was providing MarnetteD with an opportunity to explain a statement which obviously sounded ridiculous to me. Instead of responding and clarifying MarnetteD's statement, MarnetteD instead removed it, and the whole discussion, comparing me to an insect in the process (in the edit summary). I think we've established that my interpretion of the edit summary is correct, at odds with your own, as MarnetteD has clearly not denied that it was either misconstrued or misinterpreted. If that's not a serious personal attack on me then I don't know what is. Please note that MarnetteD considers calling a human being an insect much less of an insult than calling a single comment "bullshit". This is again using twisted logic. In the same vein, however, MarnetteD therefore cannot fail to appreciate how he dismissed my comments as a "wall of text" as extremely insulting, when all I was doing was genuinely trying to have a discussion with someone (whom I thought) was also interested in the same subject. How wrong I was. MarnetteD and I could have had many long hours of discussion on a topic that was of interest to both of us. Alas, some things are not meant to be.

To put recent events in context, while I could see the offence/personal attack immediately, I was also somewhat amused by the entomological comparison, as I do have a respect for Nature, and I was trying to imagine a little version of myself buzzing around a smelly argument. What I find much more offensive is when I'm using my years of experience and knowledge on a subject get thrown in my face just because an editor would rather throw a thousand policies in my face rather than engage in a human discussion. That's like a first year medical student arriving to medical school the very first day and being told they have to perform brain surgery! People have to be acclimatized, gently, over time, and in the meantime you're supposed to help them, NOT dismiss them.

I only "stuck my oar in" now simply because I saw another newcomer having to endure the same dismissive attitude MarnetteD gave me. Regardless of what KahnJohn's history is, there is a way to discuss things and getting better results without being dismissive. Users I have come across who to me have demonstrated excellent diplomatic skills are Binksternet, Acroterion, and, of course, yourself MOP, to name but a few. These should be an example to us all, but in particular experienced editors such as MarnetteD.

I'm still prepared to retract and apologize for all my recent comments if MarnetteD acknowledges the original motivation behind them, which has, as yet, never been properly addressed. -- Jodon  |  Talk  19:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to lay things out. This helps me get a clearer picture of things.
 * While I do appreciate you trying to step in on KahnJohn's behalf, that was an issue between Marnette and KahnJohn on Marnette's talk page. Speaking objectively, it's generally best to leave things like that be. Unless someone involves you, or unless it's happening on a public noticeboard (where the intention is to draw comment from multiple editors), most editors will not take kindly to people piling on on pages in their own userspace. And, in this case, I can see why Marnette is a bit prickly over this issue; you involved yourself in a situation where there was no need to do so.
 * However, at the same time, I recognize your concerns that your opinion was dismissed without due consideration and that your efforts in communicating were labelled as a wall of text. These are concerns that I can raise with Marnette separately.
 * Going back to my earlier request - if you could apologize for your edit to Marnette's talk page when you weren't involved, I think that will help move us along. You can do this here, or on Marnette's page. That way, the ball starts rolling, and I can ask Marnette to reply in kind. m.o.p  22:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your mediation. Like I said, I'm still prepared to retract and apologize for all my recent comments if MarnetteD acknowledges the original motivation behind them, which has, as yet, never been properly addressed. This was initiated by MarnetteD several months ago. Some responsibility must be taken by MarnetteD for the frustration this has caused me over the last few months. A senior editor must accept some degree of responsibility for their words/actions to a less experienced editor. If that doesn't happen we will never learn. -- Jodon  |  Talk  22:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * MOP, after reading MarnetteD's latest post, I am even more dismayed. Firstly, MarnetteD has now said "I can't help that the fact that J's feelings were hurt." Of course he can help it! Just apologize. I've already said it would go a long way. Secondly, I am at a loss to understand why he said he "will have a tough time believing that anything J has to say now will have any sincerity in it". When have I ever been insincere?!? Where has my sincerity been called into question? This is very dangerous language MarnetteD is now using to discredit me. I do hope you can see that.


 * Unfortunately, this is like trying to get blood from a stone, MOP. I suggest you don't waste any more time on this. Thanks for trying anyway. If someone like yourself can't get the likes of MarnetteD to even bend a little, what chance have the rest of us got?!?


 * This also confirms my suspicions about the Wikipedia community in general, if I am to believe what MarnetteD said that "other editors would have treated me worse". User:Bluerules expresses it best on his user page. -- Jodon  |  Talk  00:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm of the opinion that we would all gain a bit from being more humble and more willing to apologize, but, as I said on Marnette's talk page; this is a situation where you've both said things that could have gone unsaid and now neither one of you would like to make the first move. I understand this, and I'm not going to make anyone say anything they won't say of their own accord. Also, while I'm not sure why Marnette is questioning your sincerity, it's not my place to ask, it's his right to do so, and I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns. I can only play messenger to a certain point before people get bored and just want to get the issue over with.
 * I'm sorry that I was not able to help you two reach an amicable solution, but it's not the end of the world. There's still plenty of work to do in improving this wonderful project.
 * Speaking of which, I do hope that you don't grow disillusioned with Wikipedia. I'd be lying if I said that I haven't had some bad experiences in my last eight years here, but such is the nature of human collaboration! Hopefully this situation doesn't turn you off from editing completely.
 * Anyway, thank you for being civil and cooperating with my efforts these past two days. Regards, m.o.p  06:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)