Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dicklyon 2
I have added the policy I think more strongly applies here WP:NPA. No personal attacks. One would think that WP:CIVIL would be the same or include the other but I guess not.--Hfarmer (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- H, you refer to yourself under your photo as "Muslim, transsexual, scientist"; I agree it's an unusual combination, and it all seems to be part of your sthick, which I was trying to characterize for the mediator when I said you were in it for the attention. All you postings back this up, especially when you call me homophobic and transphobic, repeatedly mock my name to point of getting yourself blocked, etc. I tried just ignoring you, but then you cried to the mediator that you were being ignored. What do you suggest I try? Dicklyon (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Have another look at this section. PhilKnight (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- That section suggests some things I should agree to. Let me comment on them:
- No profanity on talk pages or edit summaries
- No problem; when have I ever? Is "bullshit" considered to be profanity? If so, let me know and I'll substitute "nonsense" where needed.
- To refer to other editors respectfully, and not as members of a cabal, an army, or similar
- How is this possible when User:James Cantor, User:WhatamIdoing, and User:ProudAGP act as a cabal in pushing the POV of Cantor's and ProudAGP's colleagues Ray Blanchard, Michael Bailey, et al.? Those two are clearly WP:SPAs with severe WP:COI, not deserving of the respect of other wikipedia editors.
- Assume good faith editing on the part of others, limiting allegations of impropriety to appropriate channels, such as noticeboards
- See above. Cantor and ProudAGP are way past the point where good faith can be even imagined of them. I can try formal channels again if you think that approach is useful, but in the past it has led nowhere, but complaints on either side, and Cantor's repeated use of formal channels is the real disruption, in my opinion. I think we're still waiting on them to approve a new mediator, aren't we?
- Abide by a 1RR limit
- Why?
- Abide by a 2-tag/page limit (without interpreting this rule as permission to top up disputed pages to two tags)
- I can do that. I didn't realize the dubious tags were such an issue with people. But each one on the "essense" page was intended to point out a specific issue needing to be resolved; there was no disruption intended.
- Dicklyon, if you are unwilling to refer to other editors respectfully, then a topic ban could be imposed. PhilKnight (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I will refer to them respectfully. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- What about the rest of our concerns?--Hfarmer (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dick, you might be interested in this column, but yes: the definition of profanity has expanded beyond its original roots (which were profane, or anti-pious, language) to include a wide variety of what the kids call "dirty words". And, yes, I think you should stop using that sort of language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- No problem; I said "bullshit" to James Cantor three time last June when he has hiding as MarionTheLibrarian, and once this year to Hfarmer in response to a non-credible statement. I said I'd use "nonsense" or equivalent in the future for such situations. Was there any other profanity, or other specific behavior, that you felt I needed to address? I've tried to state my position on Cantor's complaints above. What are yours? Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is difficult take Dicklyon's assurances seriously when a week after his comment his talkpage receives more comments from otherwise uninvolved editors about the same user conduct problem on other pages: Crap? Crap 2 ?.
- — James Cantor (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
How about learning how to disagree without prefacing it or accompanying it with some form of ad hominem? --Hfarmer (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)