Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jclemens

Early close
This is a ridiculous dispute. Both parties in this dispute look sillier the longer it goes on. There's nothing in the actions of either party that rise above the general rough and tumble of editing Wikipedia and nothing here that anyone's going to still care about in two weeks' time. I'd urge Snottywong to close this RfC as soon as possible to avoid fostering further conflict and I'd urge JClemens to ignore this issue and focus on continuing the large quantity of excellent editing he does as part of the Wikipedia community. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wholeheartedly Endorse--Mike Cline (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure without comment toward what Jclemens should do. This RfC seems to unnecesarily mountainize a molehill; closing this RfC would show good-faith on Snottywong's part. does not appear to have a history of abuse beyond this incident, which appears to be an impassioned lapse in judgement. Please don't encourage this conflict to escalate. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do Not Endorse This is not an isolated incident, as stated on the RfC/U page. Jclemens' "impassioned lapses in judgement" tend to happen in protracted disputes. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 04:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do Not Endorse per Noraft's comments. Also, the ANI discussion has degraded into a bunch of wikilawyering by Jclemens, who is still trying to make excuses for his actions.  This RfC will bring clarity to the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snottywong (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 June 2010
 * Do Not Endorse this appears to not be an isolated incident, and allegations of admin misconduct should be investigated when supported by substantial facts ZacharyLassiter (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse Enough is enough. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment about outside view by Collect

 * Comment Aren't outside views supposed to be endorsed by people that aren't connected to the issue involved? Isn't this dispute relating to ARS, and aren't both DGG and Milowent listed as one of the relatively short list of members at Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members? I believe members should recuse themselves for propriety sake, I don't see that they can be considered outside when Jclemens was attacking somebody who is apparently antipathetic to their group..- Wolfkeeper 05:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of anything saying that involved parties can't endorse the summaries of outside parties, but FWIW if such a policy exists, myself and Milowent have both been involved in the conflict prior to it coming here but DGG to my knowledge has not. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * An outside view is one that is written by an user who is utterly uninvolved from the dispute. Where an user might be involved or is tangentially involved or something, their view should be labelled as "semi-involved". If an user is involved with the user in question in some way, or in the dispute in some way, they should label their views as "involved". Any user, involved or uninvolved, may endorse any view made in an RfC/U. For further details, please refer to each of the links at WP:RFC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The normal definition of "outside view" is that it is a view from one "outside" the dispute. There is no distinction between endorsements of "outside views" by those who are outside the dispute and those who are inside the dispute. Nor has there been such in any other RFC/Us of which I am aware. I know of no basis for me being other than uninvolved in this dispute at all. Collect (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback issue: dealt with. But it isn't the only one...
While Jclemens has copped to the rollback issue, that wasn't the only concern raised by Snottywong. There is an AGF issue to be dealt with too, and in my view this is a bigger issue. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see an AGF issue. I think that the userbox on Snottywong's page, combined with his votes targeted at articles tagged for rescue by ARS gave JClemons cause to believe that the edits were not made in good faith.  Personally, I would have preferred to see him handle it differently and he has acknowledged that he should have.  This RfC seems to be expanding in its scope and is bordering on doing more harm then good.  Both parties should agree the other has a point and back off. Continued persecution of JClemons does not help anyone.  Movementarian (Talk) 02:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't see an AGF issue? I quote:
 * From this RfC's Cause of Concern section: "Jclemens made no attempt to discuss the situation with me before reverting my !votes, but he notified me of his actions afterwards here, and ordered me to cease contributing to AfD's which were flagged for rescue. In addition, that same message he left on my talk page included an admission that he noticed I had voted Keep on one of the AfD's, a clear indication that my !votes were likely not in bad faith...Immediately following Jclemens' reverts of my !votes, he started an ANI regarding my 'bad faith edits.'"
 * That's the identification of the AGF issue. Now let's see if there's evidence:
 * Jclemens at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up: "The fact that you still !vote delete after I've explained why the sources you can't read meet our notability criteria is tantamount to you calling me a liar."
 * Jclemens at WP:OUTCOMES "So you might be right that you are clueless, but the fact remains that a reasonable person reading the exchange will know that isn't  ." and "Dishonesty neither helps your cause nor demonstrates good faith"
 * Jclemens at Wikiquette_alerts/archive80 "Oh, and don't lie."
 * Jclemens at Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_64 showing Jclemens' good faith paradigm (inconsistent with WP:AGF; that it must be earned): "Want to earn some good faith? Engage on the talk page, stop pleading for other people to excuse your non-collaborative behavior."


 * The cause of concern section in the RfC clearly outlines a good faith issue. A dozen people have endorsed it. The quotes above are just a sampling of choice quotes representing the language Jclemens uses when confronted with opposition to his opinions. Do you really think there is not an AGF issue in there? ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 02:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's the point of AGF. "When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself where you can." Jclemens should have dealt with each !vote on its merits. This is exactly what AGF is for! What does AGF mean to you, if not this, Movementarian? In any case the box doesn't even say or imply that SW's !votes are anything but legitimate. ErikHaugen (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you, to a point. I am trying to assume that both parties were acting in good faith at the time of this incident.


 * I don't doubt that Snottywong posted his opinion to the AfD after considering each article. I questioned the removal of a comment that was removed on an AfD that I had opined in on JClemens talk page.  It was not explained in detail, but for editors that regularly opine in AfD debates, his rationale was clear.


 * I can see where JClemens may have thought that Snottywong was advocating 'delete' with a purpose not in keeping with general conduct in AfD discussions.


 * I think adding more and more to the scope of this debate is turning it into something that is not appropriate for this forum. The complaint originally listed in the RfC has been adequately addressed in my mind.  JClemens has admitted his actions were in error.  This is not a referendum on his abilities as an administrator, which is what I fear this is trying to turn into.  It is a forum to use community views to resolve a conflict.  This one has been resolved.  If there is a larger issue regarding his overall abilities as an administrator, then I believe there is a forum for that.  Getting off topic and expanding this conflict does not help anyone.  Movementarian (Talk) 04:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not think we are adding anything to the scope of this debate. WP:AGF is clearly indicated as part of the problem. JClemens has focused on half of the complaint, and most people have followed his lead. He has stated he would do things differently, and I think that is positive. He has not, however, spoken to his ill-treatment of fellow editors. I suspect because the "I didn't understand community consensus" won't work as a viable defense. I agree that this is a forum to use community views to resolve a conflict, but I'd like to point out that the scope of that conflict is stated in the Cause of Concern section, and the Cause of Concern doesn't talk only about the rollback issue. We're not expanding the conflict, we're dealing with ALL of it, not just half. It does not help anyone? I'd say modifying an administrator's repeated violation of WP:AGF will pretty much help all the people that administrator might otherwise be uncivil to during future disputes. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 05:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I put it to you that the admin has been rebuked by his peers and the community at large. The admin has indicated that he was in error.  Isn't it up to us to assume the admin will act in good faith from this point forward?  Continuing to berate the admin without allowing him the opportunity to show that he has learned from his mistake is counterproductive.  Let me ask you this:  What is your desired outcome and why is it so important to achieve it?  Movementarian (Talk) 05:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that he has been rebuked by his peers and the community at large for his rollback behavior. I don't think his good faith issues have been addressed, either by him, or anyone else. I think he needs to respond to the entire complaint. To answer your question, my desired outcome is for Jclemens to speak to his disrespectful behavior. I want to hear what he has to say about it. Why is it so important to achieve that? Because maybe some recognition that the community will not tolerate such bad faith behavior from an administrator will result in him toning it down (e.g. maybe he won't call anyone else a liar or clueless even if he thinks they are.). ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 05:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether he addresses it or not, it is clear that there have been behaviours exhibited that are not tolerated by the community. Those views have been voiced...boisterously at times.  Are you asking that he defend his intent?  I think by admitting that his actions were in error, he has admitted that it is indefensable.  — Movementarian  — (continues after insertion below.)
 * He has admitted his actions concerning rollback were in error. He has not owned up to his WP:AGF errors, by admitting fault, or in any other way. This is why I think the RfC is not yet concluded. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 07:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that I fail to see how that is important. His actions from this point forward are what I am anxious to see.  I guess we will have to disagree on that point, but I really hope this is resolved soon.  Movementarian (Talk) 08:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't think it is important that administrators assume good faith and treat editors with respect? Or you don't think it is important that Jclemens fails to do so when in protracted disputes? Or you don't think that failing to assume good faith and being disrespectful is cause for concern, alarm, or sanction? ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 08:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it is important for JC to admit any breach of AGF in order for this to be over. I think that admitting and owning his mistaken actions is enough.  Movementarian (Talk) 08:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that saying "!voting X way is tantamount to calling me a liar" is a mistaken action; he has not addressed it. I think accusing editors of dishonesty is a mistaken action; he has not addressed it. I think all the other disrespectful and uncivil things he has written are mistaken actions; he has not addressed them. I agree with you that "admitting and owning his mistaken actions is enough," and that's precisely what I'm waiting for. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 08:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but wouldn't the incivility aspect be better taken care of by the individual parties on talk pages? Movementarian (Talk) 09:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If it was actually taken care of, that would be great. However, Jclemens, when confronted about his behavior on individual talk pages, doesn't take responsibility for it. When accused of bad faith, he often accuses others of bad faith, or justifies his incivility as acceptable because of his perception of rule violations. So this is an opportunity for the community to say "This isn't okay, and you need to stop." An editor can brush off the accusations of a couple people involved in a dispute with him, but he can't brush off uninvolved editors saying "You're being uncivil, and you need to treat people with respect." ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 09:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the accusations of incivility should be handled separately. First on talk pages, then using WP:WQA, then if it persists through RfC and ANI.  I don't think incivility is the important issue, with regards to this complaint (not that WP:CIVIL is not important).  The important issue was the misuse or admin tools, which has been addressed and resolved.  Movementarian (Talk) 09:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Jclemens has been to WQA, ANI, and RfC for not assuming good faith/incivility.
 * The above aside, I think it is unfair to the party that brought the RfC to say "Okay, we're going to divide this into a greater and lesser issue, deal with the greater issue, and let the lesser one slide."
 * My perspective is that the good faith issue is actually the greater issue, for a couple reasons: (1) It is one of the five pillars. (2) Abuse of the rollback feature is so cut-and-dried that he won't do it again, but people with AGF issues tend to be repeat offenders, and need more scrutiny. (3) Incivility and bad faith are a much more common problem (maybe why that's why so many people see it as "not a big deal"). (4) Administrators need to be exemplary in this area, and there are half a dozen different policy statements that say so. (5) Administrator incivility and bad faith is an abuse of the trust placed in them by those that supported their RfA.
 * Even more reason to separate the issues. Trying to solve more than one problem at a time only clouds both of them.  Splitting the issues allows each one to be judged without interference.  It provides focus and elimiates tangents, such as ours.  Movementarian (Talk) 12:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Jclemens says that he misunderstood community consensus and that had he known, he would have acted differently, and I believe him. However, that excuse doesn't fly for bad faith and incivility. That can't be chalked up to "ignorance of consensus," and it can't be chalked up to "he had a bad day" if he's done it repeatedly. I want to know what he has to say for himself about that. At this point, I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll stop here. Thanks for a good discussion. I appreciate all the good questions. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 11:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you asking that he defend his personal views on SW's edits? I don't think that is necessary for resolution; simply because he is entitled to his opinion.  How he acts on those opinions is what is important, not whether he has them.  Movementarian (Talk) 06:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with you on that one. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 07:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Noraft, do you have any suggestions on how to delve further into the WP:AGF aspect of this RfC? Perhaps you'd like to add some questions to the RfC for JClemens to answer?   Snotty Wong   talk 13:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it extremely troubling, and indicative of Jclemens' pattern, that he cannot categorically answer the question "Jclemens, several editors have expressed concern over your comments to Snottywong at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up. Do you think that your comments there were polite and respectful, in keeping with Wikipedia's code of conduct?" It is a simple yes or no question asking him to characterize whether or not his comments on that talk page were in keeping with the orange pillar. His response was to ask which comments. I don't think the evasiveness is helping his case. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 09:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens apologizes for acknowledges bad faith and incivility
Thanks for point out the Gary Coleman link. There is a lot there and it is easy to overlook things. I would support the proposal if it were changed to: I agree with the ideals of the proposal, but I don't agree with the tone. Movementarian (Talk) 13:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) agree that he did not interact in a civil manner towards Snottywong at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up.
 * 2) acknowledges his actions were not in keeping with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and pledges to treat fellow editors with more respect in the future.
 * Well, I'm sort of stuck there. Verbal only will support if it says he acknowledges all his past incivility, and you want only the most recent instance. I personally don't care which we go with, as long as he's acknowledging he violated WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL somewhere. Think you two can work it out between you? ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 15:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm alright with the above. He should acknowledge that his reverts, or even striking the AfD !votes, was/would-have-been disruptive. That can be a separate one though. Hopefully he'll answer my questions (directly) Verbal chat  15:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not adverse to including something about disruption. I think we are all in agreement that interference in AfD on that level was disruptive.  Movementarian (Talk) 15:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys, please edit my proposal in such a way that it is satisfactory to both of you. I'm totally fine with that. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 15:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bye
I've admitted fault, and am now being hounded for not admitting more. I've proposed clarifying things, and I've been told I shouldn't be the one doing that. I've asked for clarification, and been told my additional "crimes" should be obvious to me. It's not clear to me that there is any interest in problems solving by those not currently satisfied with the outcome, so I'm done. Someone other than Snottywong, Verbal, or Noraft may post on my talk page if there's anything worthwhile for me to be reading here. I'm going back to building an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You've admitted fault for WP:ROLLBACK issues. You've also admitted evading answering questions about your WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL conduct because of the way it will make you look . The fact that you're more concerned with how you are portrayed, then the damage that you've done, is troubling. For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, here are Jclemens' words:

"You know what? I plead guilty to evasiveness. I see a trap... and evade it. If I say "why yes, I was incivil", then I'm admitting bad actions prior to any administrative action. If I say "why no, I think everything was peachy keen", then I risk being portrayed as insensitive to feedback, not getting the point, etc. So here's my statement, then: "I'm sure that my communications with Snottywong could have been improved, based on the objective outcome. How would you suggest that each of us have responded differently at each different point in the back-and-forth to have arrived at a different outcome? I'm sure we'd each welcome that feedback.""

- Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What a wikilawyer. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 04:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe what Noraft is getting at is that your evasiveness is what escalated the situation in the first place, and what continues to fan the fires right now. I think it's quite clear that there is no consensus for any administrative action against you, so I'm confused why such aggressive evasiveness and tactical maneuvering is necessary.   Snotty Wong   talk 06:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You have given very evasive answers that have avoided the main points of contention. You have said you wouldn't use rollback again and you only did because the rules were unclear, which is untrue - the rules were clear. You've also failed to acknowledge that you should not have acted against the AfD !votes at all for 2 reasons: 1, you were involved with ARS and SW, 2, and more importantly, there was nothing disruptive about them. You claims not to be involved with the ARS, as one of it's most vocal and active supporters are a nonsense. You've made this situation worse by your own intransigence and by describing the actions of everyone else as "pretextual" and "disruptive" etc. with no valid reason. I lastly note that the claims you made on the 50 child stars AfD obviously didn't stand up to scrutiny. Verbal chat  06:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Enough, guys, enough.
 * 1. Being involved with ARS is no reason to not take action against what is understood to be disruptive behavior.
 * 2. They certainly could be interpreted as disruptive.
 * Here we have an editor whose major contributions to wikipedia seem to be an article which could easily be interpreted as promotional in nature which the person has been working on for 3 years and a bunch of delete votes on afds. I don't intend to go through all of them as there are many but here is one which I would expect to be typically specious: Bread and butter, which is basically just parroting an earlier delete rationale which also completely lacked any investigation into the state and subject of the article.
 * Most editors have been patiently trying to get SnottyWong to drop the stick so that others can get back to creating an encyclopedia, but it seems that he is unable to get the message and his enablers seem intent on keeping the slowmotion car crash going - this has now resulted in A sprawling ANI thread, an MfD over his divisive userbox and now an RfC where he calls for anything from jclemens staying away for AfDs to being blocked for a short duration etc etc. I think its time that we stop drinking the kool-aid and tell SnottyWong and his merry band of dramaqueens to kindly stfu. Unomi (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1, doesn't change any of my points. The problem is there was no disruptive behaviour by SW. 2, clearly not if you read the !votes, the consensus forming at the MfD, the consensus at the AfDs, and WP:AGF. SW has not acted improperly, so there is no question of him "dropping the stick", he has tried to close this - however it was an inappropriate close. Bringing up an unrelated AfD doesn't show anything. How do you kindly tell someone to shut the fuck up? How does that reduce the "drama"? If you want to see specious !votes then have a look at JClemens at 50 child stars, and those certain other active members of the ARS - however, this is totally off topic. Verbal chat  09:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is at best debatable whether he (SW) acted improperly or not, but it is certainly clear that SWs actions could be interpreted as being acts of less than good faith. The AfD I posted a diff from was not unrelated, it was one of the !rationales that Jclemens removed. Nothing is going to reduce the drama until SW starts adhering to his DGAF userbox instead of bawling like a child denied at a supermarket. My actions are not so much aimed at reducing present drama as it is aimed at trying to ensure less of this petulant posturing in the future. I already endorsed closing this days ago, but apparently some found it distasteful to drop the stick. Unomi (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "bawling like a child denied at a supermarket", "petulant posturing", "stfu". You seem to be the one with the stick and the chip on your shoulder. If you have anything relevant, please add it. If you assume good faith, then there s nothing in SWs AfD !votes that can be viewed as disruptive, being based on sound policy and honestly held opinions (unless you have evidence?), they are certainly far less disruptive than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:GHITS arguments that are an unfortunate staple of the ARS. Verbal chat  09:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * AGF is not a suicide pact, in the face of less than ideal behavior we tend to go from Assume Good Faith to Assume No Clue to Assume Bad Faith. The behavior of other editors, be they ARS members or not, isn't what we are discussing. We are talking about the behavior of SW and how that might have come across to Jclemens. I think it is fair to say that we have long crossed the threshold of Assume No Clue, and thats ok we are all (hopefully) learning as we go along, but when faced with !rationales as the one he offered on Bread and Butter above, which seems like blatant parroting of a random previous !rationale then we have to consider whether or not we should Assume Bad Faith, especially in light of the userbox which at the time looked like this. The Bread and Butter !rationale and the !rationale given here are not based on a sound understanding of policy, at least not one married with the responsibility of research. Unomi (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't blame Jclemens for being done with the whole process. It seems that nothing he can do will ever be enough for a few users. Whatever incivility alleged is well over now and it is time to move on. This RfC is on the verge of becoming disruptive and the assertions of several users about Jclemens and the ARS do not assume good faith. The very charge they are so passionately trying to prove. I've watched Jclemens interactions with other, in and out of this RfC, for a while now. He has been polite, helpful, and offered advice to inexperienced users; basically everything I would expect to see from a good Admin.

This RfC has gone beyond its usefulness and should be closed. If there were still an issue to solve, I would recommend that this be closed and Snottywong and Jclemens agree to take it before the MedCab without supporters. I really don't see anything else that need fixed. Jclemens has not continued the behaviour that some found objectionable, which should have been the end goal here. You will not get a majority of users to agree to any punitive measures and his alleged involvement with the ARS is irrelevant. There is nothing else to be gained by this process being continued. Movementarian (Talk) 11:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing I would like to see id JClemens acknowledge his actions were incorrect (not the use of rollback, that's dealt with). He has evaded that issue, see his last post about it on his talk page. This is the point of this RfC and is not hounding. Verbal chat  11:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is that the objective, rather than the offending behaviour not being continued? Even here, amongst the hostility from some, he has kept a cool head.  He has answered all questions asked him, perhaps not to your satisfaction, but they are answered.  He has also acknowledged that his interactions with Snottywong could have been better, perhaps not to your satisfaction, but he has admitted it.  You've all gotten your pound of flesh.  It is time to end this.  Movementarian (Talk) 12:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage everyone to avoid responding to Unomi in any way, as he has clearly shown his preference for personal attacks over intelligent discourse (both here and on the userbox MfD). He obviously holds some kind of a violent grudge against me, for what I have no idea. The funny part is that his criticisms of my contributions to WP were focussed on the article I've worked the most on (CobraNet), which he says "could easily be interpreted as promotional in nature". It's clear to me that he hasn't done too much research on my contributions, because that article in particular has been a GA for several months now.

I've already made my opinion clear that I'm ready to close this RfC. Now that everyone's questions have been answered (although most of the answers are unsatisfactory, but it appears that is the extent of the cooperation we are going to get from Jclemens), I will start a proposal to close the RfC.
 * I see that you have mastered the art of psychological projection, I hold no grudge against you, how could I? I have been speaking directly to your actions. Please strike or support your allegations of me being a troll. Unomi (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You have now called me an asshat, a drama queen, characterized my userbox as "puerile wankery", and finally you've "kindly" asked me to shut the fuck up. I think that's probably enough to start a complaint at WP:WQA, no less to accuse you of being a troll.    Snotty Wong   talk 17:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You continue with what is either a deliberate pattern of misrepresentation or an extravagant display of your reading comprehension shortcomings. I did at no point call you an asshat, I did however urge you to ensure that your actions were more easily distinguishable from those of an asshat, you on the other hand did call me an asshat while failing to respond to my actual accusations of you stooping to hyperbole. I did not say that you were a drama queen, I said SnottyWong and his merry band of drama queens. I did appeal to the community to kindly ask you to stfu, and seeing as how you seem unable to stem your ever flowing torrent of BS I think it continues to be solid advice. Unomi (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So, if you say that my actions are indistinguishable from an asshat, how is that different from calling me an asshat? Your logic skills are astounding.  In any case, is there any need to call anyone an asshat or a drama queen?  Is there a reason to tell anyone to shut the fuck up?  Have I deserved this incivility by being uncivil to you?  Why don't you tone it down and leave your emotions at the door.    Snotty Wong   talk 17:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

When you accuse me of endless modification and opine that my comments are uninformed and irrelevant and engage in transparent deflection and denial by stating that I am quoting out of context when you yourself state unequivocally that which I had attributed to you. Then yes, you are begging for behavior modification. Your persistence in combining wikilawyeresque hyperbole and solid misrepresentation of policies is unnerving, especially as the most generous interpretation is that you are actually unaware that you are doing it. My response spoke to your actions and manner in a straightforward and honest way because I thought that you were able to let go of what I had assumed to be a facade - obviously this denied me that illusion, and seemed to have reinforced your own. Do you really think that I just wanted to pick a fight? Many reasonable editors have tried with no success to get you on a better path, but you managed to ignore them. You seem to be very likely in succeeding in coming out of this having learnt absolutely nothing, my apologies. Unomi (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you looked at the history of the userbox, you'd see that there were numerous changes by numerous editors. Hence, why I referred to "endless modification" in general, not specifically by you.  The fact that you interpreted it as an accusation directed at you is a problem with your own reading comprehension.  Your response was that content is routinely modified during the course of an XfD, and then you assumed I was not aware of that and called me an asshat as a result.  I believe my response was a clear defense that I am fully aware that content is modified during the course of an XfD, but that there is no justification for modifying content that is already leaning heavily towards a Keep result.  If there was an AfD that had 40 keep votes and 10 delete votes (assuming each had a reasonable rationale), then there is no mandate for mass modifications.  This is where the argument ended, as you apparently had no response.  I also clearly explained multiple times that I wanted the XfD to decide the fate of the userbox in its current state, because if it closed as a Keep then there would be a clear mandate for its acceptability, and therefore I wouldn't have to deal with multiple MfD's on it.  If we watered it down to the point that it didn't even contain the original message, then I would be forced to either delete it (because it would be useless to me) or change it back to my own wording and submit to another round of MfD.  This reasoning has been explained to you ad nauseum, yet you still continue to argue about it.  Finally, the reason I accused you of taking my comments out of context is because you noted that I had reverted recent changes to the userboxes by other users (which changed it to say something like "This user improves Wikipedia by reviewing articles tagged for rescue"), and then from that reversion you concluded that I obviously have no desire to improve Wikipedia.  You are clearly twisting words in an attempt to gain support for your misguided agenda, and I will continue to defend myself.  I am not wikilawyering nor am I misrepresenting policies (because I'm not even referencing any policies), I am only defending myself against your false and unsubstantiated allegations.  I can continue this for as long as you'd like.  Just keep making up arguments for me to refute.    Snotty Wong   talk 19:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. "Hence, why I referred to "endless modification" in general, not specifically by you." :for endless modification as you see fit
 * 2. "Your response was that content is routinely modified during the course of an XfD, and then you assumed I was not aware of that and called me an asshat as a result" : I made exactly 1 edit to your userbox in an attempt to make it something that the community could support widely - endless modification is trite hyperbole as much of your post has been. In the future please strive to ensure that your actions are not indistinguishable from that of an asshat..
 * 3. What you seem intent on ignoring is the userbox policy, I was trying to save it from being deleted. Between the name of ARSBackfire itself and the content which casts aspersions on the behavior of every member of ARS, do you really think that a numerical I like it + ARS members going 'meh' majority is going to save it? I personally doubt it.
 * 4. removing This user attempts to improve wikipedia ...
 * 5. "I am not wikilawyering nor am I misrepresenting policies": In response to my quoting of Userbox policy: Essentially: Express what you do like, rather than what you don't like. Express what you comprehend, rather than what you don't comprehend. Express what you do, rather than what you don't. Express who you are, rather than who you aren't. You stated Actually, I believe the userbox does "express what I do", so I'm in compliance with the passage you quoted from WP:Userboxes.
 * 6. "You are clearly twisting words in an attempt to gain support for your misguided agenda" - What agenda would that be, in your estimation? Unomi (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, you win, I'm done. See ya.   Snotty Wong   talk 21:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)