User talk:Rendall

Hello, Rendall, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Epic Genius (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I'm sorry I hurt your feelings and meant no insult. ... The friendly, truthful thing would be to say something like ... I suggest letting go, welcoming the discussion and being open to proposed changes! - this most certainly does come across to me as patronizing mock-civility. Actual civility, for one thing, begins with respect for your interlocutor, and respect is never achieved by sham mind-reading (I'm sorry I hurt your feelings) or by repeated assertions that the other person is not telling the truth - the irony of making untruthful assertions about what other people are saying to provide evidence for the latter claim should not be lost on you, but sadly, it appears to be. Newimpartial (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This reads very much like mind-reading to me:

patronizing mock-civility

Rendall hasn't directed any personal comments at you, so would it not be more productive to assume good faith here? Clicriffhard (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think I'm sorry I hurt your feelings is a personal comment? WP:CIR, I'm afraid. That opinion doesn't seem conducive to interacting with others on a collaborative project. Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC) redacted and paraphrased by Newimpartial (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid I don't see that. This is more obviously a personal comment:

WP:CIR, I'm afraid.

Clicriffhard (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know Rendall's gender, but men have been referring to the feelings of non-men in a dismissive way for centuries now, and many of us find such comments to be deeply personal. Stating that you hurt someone else's feelings, without evidence, is rather generously interpreted as mind reading; it would be less kind (though perhaps more accurate) simply to see a personal attack. Either way, it isn't WP:CIVIL, and blindness to such matters doesn't show competence editing in a way that condones such comments isn't conducive to a collaborative project. Newimpartial (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC) redacted and paraphrased by Newimpartial (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, NewImpartial, hurt feelings is the most charitable interpretation of your behavior over there. It reads like a cynical attempt to distract, bait and exhaust editors who disagree with you. Let's begin centering the Wikipedia readers and make the best article we can. This is all I have to say on this. Rendall (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no goals on Wikipedia other than the creation and maintenance of articles that accurately reflect their sources and that communicate effectively with their readers. The cynicism you impute to me does not come from me, and is not reflected in my editing history in any way. Not even Crossroads has cast ASPERSIONS towards my conduct in the way you have just now (q.v. a cynical attempt to distract, bait and exhaust editors who disagree with you) and if this is what you believe my motives to be, it is easier to understand the personal attacks and barbs you have repeatedly launched at me "in return" - they remain contrary to WP community norms, however, so I do indeed hope that This is all you have to say on this is borne out by your actions going forwards. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you that WP:CIR states the following:

What "Competence is required" does not mean

• It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor, and find ways to phrase things that do not put people on the defensive or attack their character or person.

English is one of two languages that I use on a regular basis. I speak and write competently, and I understand your comments. Disagreement is not incompetence, and I'd appreciate it if you could bear that in mind, particularly when you're accusing others of incivility. Clicriffhard (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was blindness to such matters (communicative norms) doesn't show competence. That is not a comment about any disagreement, nor did I comment on or label anyone - that whole diff is quite clearly concerned with contributioms, not contributors. And my prior diff was a direct response to your prior diff, not to you as a contributor. If you are interested in participating in a collaborative project, you simply can't go around leveling accusations at other participants, particularly without evidence. And it is perfectly possible to have disagreements with other editors without accusing them of lying to, misleading, baiting or distracting others - I would suggest that you and Rendall make some attempt to do so. Newimpartial (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rendall - thank you for the message on my talk page, which is very much appreciated. I'm struggling to find much spare time at the moment, but if the odd delay isn't going to irritate you too much, I'm very much up for discussing how to approach the various issues (as we see them) on the Graham Linehan article and talk page.

As much as I agree that it would be better to have the discussion here for transparency, I've had a few frustrating experiences of editors watching my talk page and derailing conversations with endless accusations of aspersions or bad-faith assumptions, for which they then demand evidence to the contrary - it takes time and energy, it's very boring, and it draws me away from what I actually wanted to discuss. So in the interest of actually being able to describe the issues plainly in order to figure out the best approach, I'll drop you a short email now and then we can pick it up whenever we have time. Clicriffhard (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do this. Even if you don't intend to do anything improper it looks absolutely awful. If anybody raises it with the administrators then the likelyhood of both of you getting blocked would be very high. DanielRigal (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. What do you suggest that I do instead if I want to discuss this in full view but don't want to waste time being derailed by people I'm not interested in talking to? Clicriffhard (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss it here, but if someone becomes disruptive we then have options. Also, take it slow. I'm not in a rush. There is enough data over there in archives that we have a pretty good case for disruptive stonewalling and lack of good faith. My issue is less about the content than about conduct. Rendall (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started a thread there to steel-man the disputed content. Let's try that and do our best! Rendall (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok perfect, thanks. I'm not likely to have much spare time for a while but if we're not in a rush then I'll contribute as and when I can. And on reflection, I agree with you and DanielRigal that transparency is important.

Incidentally, same - I have no love for Linehan and if a real and demonstrable consensus arises that differs from my view, that's fair enough. Just not a fan of how the article has been handled in the last few years. Clicriffhard (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's trust the process and improve on it where we can. Rendall (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rendall. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  firefly ( t · c ) 15:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]