User talk:Xenophrenic/Response

For what it's worth, as it's your talk page; I request redaction of your false claims that I attacked you rather than your edits. I redacted it as a courtesy, as not being necessary for that thread. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Arthur. I did not specify whether you attacked "me" or "my edits". I simply referred to your "personal attack". Per WP:WIAPA Policy, which describes comments that are never acceptable, the 6th bullet-point states:
 * Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.
 * You accused me of "tendentious editing", a very serious charge to which I took offense, and I asked you to show me these "your edits" or retract your comment. It doesn't matter to me how strongly you feel you were justified in making such a comment, you are still obligated to substantiate the comment, otherwise that comment becomes a personal attack in violation of WP:NPA.


 * As an aside, Arthur, I don't enjoy fighting with you and it is not personal. I can take all forms of criticisms and insults and nastiness in stride, except accusations that impugne my editing motivations -- those will always prompt a firm response from me. Other editors and admins can attest to that.  Some of your responses to me have included some personal information (wife & hospitals, employment, etc.) that have struck a sympathetic chord for reasons I'll not go into, which just serve to make our negative interactions doubly distasteful and unfortunate.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I claimed that specific edits of yours (or, to be precisely, a specific comment made by you on a talk page) indicated tendentious editing. That's probably specific enough for a formal claim.  If you want me to, I'll make it explicit in the RfCU, although, as has been pointed out many times, a specific edit rarely indicates tendentious editing; TE is a pattern of editing, which (usually) requires many diffs to demonstrate; in some cases, the diffs might be, considered, individually, innocent.  I did have a specific section of the talk page in mind which clearly indicates WP:NOTHERE on your part.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Once Upon A Time - A Tale of Two Wikipedians

 * Once upon a time, a lowly Wikipedia editor and an esteemed Wikipedia Administrator found themselves editing the same contentious articles.
 * As sometimes happens in these scenarios, tempers were tested, patience was drained, and eventually ... personal attacks were made!
 * Tendentious editor! Dishonest! Intentional misinterpretation! Disruptive! The attacks upon the character of the lowly editor by the Admin came furiously and repeatedly.
 * Stunned, the mere editor pleaded with the lordly Admin, "What have I done? Might I please see a Diff or two showing this egregious behavior?"
 * Appalled that this simple editor would question his word, the word of an Admin after all, he raised his voice - and this time he also waved his hands about and stomped his feet - as he reiterated his same attacks upon the editor.
 * But Diffs were still not provided. "Sir, you must be mistaken!", said the editor. "Might I please see just one Diff to remind me of these abhorrent actions?"
 * Diffs?! I don't need to provide any Diffs to the likes of you, as your crimes are clearly evident for everyone to see all over Wikipedia!
 * Seeing the futility of further discourse with the raging Admin, and now convinced the Admin was talking out of his hind-quarters, the editor traveled to the Arena of Never-ending Idiocy (ANI) to plead his case publicly and attempt to defend his honor.
 * No sooner had the editor presented his case to the public, the attacker's fellow Admins quickly rallied to defend one of their own. The lowly editor doth protest too much!  These are not serious personal attacks!  The editor shouldn't be so bristly!  Go whine somewhere else about these non-attacks!, they screeched.  Then to drive the editor away, they peppered the besieged editor with insults, "Argumentative editor!  Snarky editor!  Annoying editor!  And just look at his record of warnings and blocks - unclean, he is!"
 * Enough was enough. Filled with righteous indignation, the editor struck back!  To those claiming the Admin had not made a personal attack, the lowly editor dared to instruct them in Wikipedia policy which defines a personal attack as "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."  To those who claimed this was just a one-time offense by the Admin, the editor reminded them of past incidents where time and time again the Admin was confronted and forced to retract his unsubstantiated attacks, claiming confusion or mistaken identity or whatever excuse was convenient at the time. To those claiming there was no actionable violation, the editor reminded them that policy clearly states Wikipedians, especially Admins, are to "comment only on content, not on the contributor; don't make accusations about personal behavior that lack clear evidence; editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions.
 * The defenders of the Admin, with their claims now revealed as hollow, their ignorance of policy unmasked, their frenzy doused by common sense response, managed to muster up one last retort: Be done and be gone! Take your fight for justice before the grand Committee of Arbitration and leave us be! And thus the Arena of Never-ending Idiocy was closed.
 * The fight was indeed escalated, as the lowly editor was relentless in his pursuit to clear his name. But with the Highest Judges of Conduct in the land now staring straight at the Admin and the editor, the Admin quickly redacted his remaining personal attacks, admitting they were "not appropriate".  In a last-ditch attempt to save face, the Admin added, "although no one in their right mind would consider it a personal attack" as he finished removing the obvious personal attacks.  Happy that the Admin had finally redacted his foul comments, the editor didn't quibble about the Admin's face-saving attempts, secure in the knowledge that this Admin had surely learned not to make any accusations about a fellow editor in the future without providing the required Diffs.
 * As the editor walked off into the sunset, the High Judges of Conduct could be heard mumbling something about "We need Diffs..." as they turned their gaze toward the Admin. "I'm afraid I'm busy in real life, also; my wife is having surgery...", the Admin stammered. The editor absent-mindedly wondered if the Admin remembered to bring a note from the doctor.
 * THE END
 * Chin up, TRM. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Chin up, TRM. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Chin up, TRM. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)