User talk:Lepricavark

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I certainly did not intend my complaint to be a "character assassination". I tried to be fair and point out EEng has made helpful edits, and tried to think of ways they could continue to do so. Usually the fact that someone has broken a rule many times results in a different outcome compared to someone who has broken a rule only once, when other people try to stop the bad behavior. This case was not an acute problem so much as a chronic problem that has recently flared up again, and I don't see how it is possible to explain that it is a chronic problem without giving at least an overview of its history. -- Beland (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by EEng that prompted you to file that thread was mildly terse, and I doubt if you would have it given a second thought had it come from anyone else. From my viewpoint, you seized upon a small edit that wasn't really an issue and used it as a springboard to try to start a discussion about EEng's long-term conduct. The community already had one of those discussions very recently, and I chose not to participate in part because I didn't want to be subjected to insinuations against my character from editors who think they have the moral high ground. As you can see from the recent comments on your own talk page, the hypocrisy can be staggering. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think going out of one's way to be disrespectful to other editors simply because they are following Wikipedia policies like WP:BURDEN is a problem. I don't think I would have filed this complaint if I hadn't noticed EEng's "hold your breath until you turn blue" comment (followed by swearing and an extended flying-off-the-handle rant against another editor), which justifies a response no matter who the editor was. That comment was made in June, which is too long ago to be actionable now by itself. While investigating the appropriate response, I noted that EEng had already been blocked by more recent comments. I decided to watch their contributions after they came back to see if serving their longest block so far had changed their behavior at all. The answer appears to be "no", which is information the previous AN/I discussion didn't have.

I'm sorry you felt like you couldn't participate in that discussion; that sounds like an example of the sort of alienating toxicity I'm trying to reduce. Certainly if other people have legitimate reasons to call me uncivil, that's something I'd want to change about myself. I'm certainly annoyingly persistent and often blunt, and I remember editors accusing me of being biased (which is par for the course in any polarized debate these days, justified or not)...but never uncivil. Is there a specific message or message on my user talk page you're thinking of? The only two people to write there about the EEng thread were to thank me for filing the complaint and apologizing for the responses I got from other editors. -- Beland (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry you were swiftly attacked and insulted at ANI by the usual cabal that shows up there whenever a thread about EEng opens.
• Thank you for trying to make the community better instead of being an enabler. The same clique always rush to defend each other whenever incivility is reported.

Those remarks are uncivil. Those two editors ran to your talk page to vent their anger against 'the usual cabal/enablers', and they were clever enough to say nice things to you so that wouldn't notice they were using your talk page as a forum to take cheap shots at other people. The difference between you and them is that you showed me the courtesy of coming to my talk page for a conversation. The aggressive civility enforcers generally don't talk to editors like me; they talk about us behind our backs. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for clarifying. -- Beland (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey Lep. can you please take a look at the Louie Meadows page. You reverted some edits at the beginning of the month.but either someone is vandalizing the page or trying to highjack the page. Thank you CannisRoofus (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually someone else who did the reverts earlier this month, but thank you for bringing that to my attention. I've reverted and will put the page on my watchlist. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]