User talk:SCZenz/Transcript

Light current
This comment was uncalled for! First of all, I didn't read any discussion on WP:AN until just now, because I had thought the discussion was on WP:AN/I and couldn't find it. I was rather responding to this edit he made at the reference desk, in which he seemed very frustrated but totally non-specific. Nowhere did I say he was right or that anyone was being abusive; I was simply trying to ask him to explain why he'd said what he said.

If you want my thoughts on how to deal with LC, I'm happy to discuss, but I thought I'd get this out of the way first. It seems to me that you rather misunderstood my position here, and the way you called me out at WP:AN kind of bothers me. -- SCZenz 17:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And how else am I to interpret "Admins giving you crap?" That was totally uncalled for on your part. Might I suggest that next time you find out who those admins are before you make such comments? pschemp | talk 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a question. He said admins were giving him crap (or similar), and I was asking about it. I can see the source of the misunderstanding: you read it as me agreeing he has a problem, and offering to help.  That was not my intention however, it was more to say "Oh, admins are giving you crap, are they?" and ask him to clarify.  I apologize for the ambiguity. -- SCZenz 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW (butting in here and replying to the original post), SCZenz, that's how I interpreted your post to LC's talk page (the same way pschemp did), until I thought about it. I realise you were just quoting LC's words and reflecting his interpretation, but you have to be more careful of how you express yourself, IMO. Because part of LC's MO is that he seeks community approval for his position, then once he thinks he has it, he really digs in and gets aggressive. IMO he's interpreted your communication to him as support for his position, and he's been correspondingly more hostile and positional as a result. Anchoress 17:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comment is noted, and you're probably right. The ambiguity was a calculated decision on my part; my intention was to give him the impression that I might take his side if he talked to me, in an effort to get him to discuss things rather than continuing to inflame the situation.  It appears that was the wrong thing for me to do.  -- SCZenz 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whee, I was actually hoping that was your intent deep down when I first read the comment because you've always seemed reasonable in past interactions. Thanks for making this clear. Anchoress is correct here, that's the pattern. My only aim is to see the reference desk be a bit more professional and not used for personal discussions so much. pschemp | talk 18:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Anchoress is wrong about me this time. I actually put SCZ s comments on the back burner whilst I was replying directly to the main protagonists. Any hostility or aggression shown by me (of which actually there was remakably little if you check my posts) was a pure reaction to that shown to me by pschemp and others. Nothing at all to do with SCZens offer of help which I have now accepted BTW. Hope that clears that misunderstanding. 8-)--Light current 18:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My proposal to LC
Hi Pschemp,

In response to LC asking me (giving the different tones I've taken with different people in an effort to resolve this) what my position is and whether I'm serious by helping, I wrote/proposed the following:
 * Good question. I'm being put between a rock and a hard place by the two sides here, so let me be 100% clear on what I think, and what I propose we do:


 * I think you've made some comments that were inappropriate.
 * Others have tried to point this out, and you haven't reacted well.
 * Threatening to block you has not been a productive way of handling the situation, nor are pile-ons of many people saying the same thing.
 * The situation has been inflamed, as I said, by both sides focusing on their own "rights" and the other party's excesses.
 * You are an extraordinarily helpful editor, in general, and I think continuing down the current path is all too likely to result in hardened positions, frustration, and Wikipedia losing your contributions. This would be very bad.
 * I can convince pschemp, and others, to leave the situation to me, in the mentorship discussed above. They will expect me to keep you from saying inappropriate/unhelpful things at the reference desk, and I will do this.  However, I will do it as far as possible by discussing issues and helping you understand what the complaints are, rather than by removing your comments or making threats.
 * As long as I am able to work with you and roughly meet these expectations, other admins will leave you alone and none of them will block you.
 * I have tried to take a concilliatory tone with both sides in order to sort this out, but this is my honest proposal. I'll copy it to the other pages where this is being discussed.  Can you accept it? [end of quote]

What do you think, pschemp? -- SCZenz 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Good luck. Btw, the block threat was for re-inserting the removed comments, not for actually making them. There is no current threat to block, nor have I looked at his contributions (or plan to.) I was happy with the rewrite of the comment that's already been done. pschemp | talk 19:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)