Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hammersoft/Personal Attacks




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Hammersoft/Personal Attacks
This page is being used in violation of WP:USER. While the beginning expresses a view I don't share, I don't have a particular problem with the general views expressed in the beginning. The problem I have is the Examples cited in which User:Hammersoft decides to twist my words which are explicitly prohibited in user space: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason.". I have pointed this out and respectfully requested the removal of such problematic material (see palk page), removed them myself, and then, realizing it wasn't just me, I deleted the other one as well; in return, I get an unexplained reversion, a warning to "Knock if off...in my own userspace" (in violation of WP:OWN. This page serves no useful purpose other than to inflame tensions those who disagree with this user and is used as an excuse to belittle other users. The corollaries he espouts run contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and should not be encouraged. More importantly, personal grudges shouldn't be held indefinitely, cataloged, and spread across Wikipedia. -- — BQZip01 — talk 01:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rewrite per my comments at the talk page. Specific links intended as commentary on individual editors violate WP:UP and what's more, aren't needed to draw the overarching point of the essay. Everyone already knows pretty much what a personal attack is, these can be referenced in general terms sans wikilinks. Franamax (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep First, policies allow considerably more latitude with regards to userspace content. This page in no way attempts to disparage anyone, much less BQZip01. Second, BQZip01 has long had a vendetta against me. He has previously accused me of slander, made a request that I be blocked for prolonged incivility, and has repeatedly harassed me throughout the project. I see this MfD as a further extension of this behavior. At the AN/I board section linked above, I made it clear that I was trying to stay out of BQZip01's way. But, that isn't possible when he engages in activities such as this. I am sick to death of this user harassing me. Even on the very page in this MfD, BQZip01 engaged in an edit war against me in an attempt to force content off of it. He didn't even bother seeking an outside opinion. He just decided to lecture me with yet another blizzard of policies and guidelines and then reverted me. The irony in all of this is that I have frequently, virtually ceaselessly, been the butt of all manner of attacks from all sorts of editors and this page is my only means left now to counter such attacks. Even this now is on the chopping block. So, I just have to take all of the "fuck you"s, "retard"s, "lowest form of life"s, "troll"s insults and many, many more and just say "Gee, thanks. That felt good. Could you use a little lubrication next time? No? Ok, I'll take it rough then. Thanks!" Even the very diff that BQZip01 wants off of this page he accused me of violating WP:AGF and WP:OWN because I refused to engage in dialogue with a verbally abusive editor. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it interesting that BQZip01's own essay on MfDs contains the following: "(keep if) It is not exclusively an attack page. This means the content is specifically directed at another users actions/contributions, but not at the individual. " This is precisely what this page is. It's not an attack page in any respect. See for yourself User:BQZip01/MfD essay. I have to ask, why am I being targeted with this MfD when by BQZip01's own standards, the page is acceptable? Curious. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This, of course, takes my comments out of context (again) and only quotes the parts that support his assertions. The page also states that the following conditions must also be met:
 * The page explicitly states the WP:DR process in which it is intended to be used.
 * The page has a limited timeframe
 * The page is not linked elsewhere by its creator
 * Your page fails all of these.
 * If you feel you have been wronged in some way, you are welcome to submit them to appropriate boards, but you can't keep a personal gripes page. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove examples. Hammersoft's law is just his silly little get out clause for when his tendentious behaviour and odd logic piss people off so much they snap, and it gives him a handy excuse to wander off somewhere else imposing the Foundation view of NFC his personal ideas about NFC. However, as an essay in his user space, it will thankfully only ever represent his own opinions, which is fine. It is however not acceptable to maintain a list of examples, these people have done nothing wrong in the eyes of anyone except Hammersoft, and WP:USER is explicit, you do not maintain open ended evidence pages. Either he acts on these incidents, or he doesn't, it's his choice, but it is not his choice to slur other editor in an open ended manner. MickMacNee (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your behavior is a perfect example of why that page exists in the first place. It's not enough for you to comment on the content of the page. You have to comment on me as well. Nice. Very nice. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As they say, AGF is not a suicide pact. After numerous interactions, I'm amazed no one has ever hauled you before arbitration for the way you conduct yourself in debates. Just because you don't comment on contributors, doesn't mean you don't have 101 other behavioural flaws. I am guessing that most people just get utterly sick of you, particularly as your behaviour constantly skirts the line of actually actionable behaviour, and nothing is ever likely to be done without a huge timewasting RFC/U being drawn up, and people just prefer to steer well clear of you, especially when you throw your silly little law in their faces. Which of course only helps you in your goals. MickMacNee (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proving the point of the page that is up for MfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it is thankfully only an essay representing your viewpoint. Don't you wonder for example why you never get any help from ANI? Everybody is just that little bit smarter when they look at interactions and debates as a whole, and can see through your 'I am not doing anything wrong because I never made it personal' approach for what it is. People simply have a far more realistic understanding of the principles of CIVIL than are enshrined in your silly law. Someday you will push somone into actually doing something about it and you will land in a venue where your standard responses won't get you anywhere. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've received considerable help from AN/I on a number of occasions, not the least of which was BQZip01's attempt to have me blocked in October. As for my behavior/actions landing me in some notional hot water; have at it, and kindly do so in the appropriate forum. This MfD isn't a call for deletion of my behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As above, I cannot be bothered to spend the time, you would have to push me personally a lot further yet, but I'm sure there are others. And the BQ ANI thread is a very good example of my point about how your behaviour just skirts the boundaries of being actionable, which is why it would need someone to take the time to lay it out for people to get it, as it were. ANI just isn't the venue to deal with persistent problem editors like yourself, who have no self awareness at all, it never has been. And because of your self awareness issues, filing an RFC/U would be a mere formality in showing willing on the part of your many detractors, but to be honest, you have had a million and one chances to get it and change your ways, so that would likely just close with no change, and the issue would then defer to the inevitable move to a more appropriate venue. But it is interesting you don't see this Mfd as a comment on your behaviour, given that it relates to the way you use your user space in an innappropriate way. MickMacNee (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything additional to contribute to this MfD, or do you intend to turn this into an RfC on my behavior? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Close: I've removed links providing any connection between the examples and the editors in question. Are we happy now? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as the links pointing out other users' perceived flaws are removed. I don't think this essay violates WP:UP without the links in there. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Close, given attempts to alleviate concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment While the links have been removed there are still a couple dozen on his user page. While not exactly this page, it is certainly closely related and the same opinions I believe apply to this page as well. I personally believe Hammersoft wears these attacks as a badge of honor. I admire his tenacity in the fair use arena, but I am concerned at the following comment:
 * "...this page is my only means left now to counter such attacks. Even this now is on the chopping block. So, I just have to take all of the "fuck you"s, "retard"s, "lowest form of life"s, "troll"s insults and many, many more and just say "Gee, thanks. That felt good. Could you use a little lubrication next time? No? Ok, I'll take it rough then. Thanks!""
 * He has inserted himself into a voluntary role within Wikipedia. He should also recognize that he doesn't have to tolerate this behavior, but I think we all agree that this isn't the best way to counteract it. It isn't your "sole" place to vent your frustrations. There are boards for this. Keeping misunderstandings around doesn't help improve the encyclopedia. Ignoring others doesn't help improve the encyclopedia. Aside from that, your self-injected role is self-imposed. If you don't like it, you don't have to do it. To complain "this sucks" and keep on doing it (or doing it more) seems to be a bad idea, especially when you don't have to "embrace the suck".
 * That said, I can't help but think we've failed Hammersoft as a WP community. He is right. He shouldn't have to put up with that and, no matter what I think about his civility, it is more important to point out that the behavior of others in this little sector of Wikipedia should be a driving concern of Wikipedians everywhere. I would like to say that I support actions taken to appropriate boards for uncivil behavior (i.e. Wikiquette alerts or Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as the situation warrants). If you take some of these concerns to a board in the future, I request you contact me (and perhaps others on this board). You shouldn't have to face some of the worst behavior Wikipedia has to offer alone.
 * Hammersoft, I want to compliment you on the general basis of your work. You are in an arena where you don't always deal with the most pleasant people or those with the most pleasant demeanor. We, as a community should back you up when others use profanity around you. You don't have to just take it. Others around here support that concern. I think the problem we have is that you are publicly immortalizing these actions and visibly keeping/displaying anything you view as a personal attack. This only leads to bad blood and perhaps isolation/insulation from those willing to help. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * [ec]/in response to this edit by Hammersft which he subequently deleted
 * Dude, I've tried to be nice and was trying to be supportive of a difficult task you've opted to perform within Wikipedia. Consider that perhaps a cordial conversation wouldn't be so bad. Intentionally ignoring others with whom you disagree isn't going to help the situation and strikes me as being quite uncivil. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't you just stop? Look, I posted, thought better of it, and deleted it. Is it necessary to respond to things I intentionally deleted that were never responded to or even SEEN by anyone not looking at the edit history of this page? Unreal. Absolutely unreal. Look, I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't with you. If I'm being uncivil, then report me for being uncivil and God knows what else you are going to accuse me of. LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw it before it was deleted and responded accordingly (note the "edit conflict" annotation), so your assumption that no one saw it is inaccurate. Not including the context of my thoughts on the matter would be disingenuous. Furthermore you shouldn't remove your own comments. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted it 60 seconds after I posted. I do NOT need your permission to delete unresponded to comments. Especially when it's been 60 seconds. Common sense does have a place around here. As for the rest, I'll say to you what I said to MickMacNee; Do you have anything additional to contribute to this MfD, or do you intend to turn this into an RfC on my behavior? --Hammersoft (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dudes. Really. Hammer posted in a burst of emotion then thought better and reverted themself. BQ saw the post when it was live (as did I) and BQ chose, prehaps unwisely, to respond to a removed post. Is that what happened? You two need to settle down, but no Hammersoft, you both have an interest in the same areas so you will have to get along. I don't see this as a "he goes or I go" situstion at all and this issue arose before the caution to avoid each other anyway, so tough it out. You two are letting personal dislike get in the way of good artciles imo. Franamax (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC) And this post has nothing at all to do with MFD rationales!


 * Keep - current version is fine. PhilKnight (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.