User talk:Solo I Fatti

Vandalism removed

Personal attacks upon editors

(The following discussion was moved here from article talk page space, which is reserved for discussion of article improvement only.)

This has been an interesting discussion, although Xenophrenic is discussing in bad faith. Just for the record, Xenophrenic has stated on his User Page, "WP:Assume good faith is a Wikipedia suggested guideline, not a policy; I've chosen to opt out of this one...... assuming bad faith is the norm." Xenophrenic, are you describing yourself here? Hardly a good foundation to conduct a discussion to reach consensus.... In Good Faith, Solo I Fatti (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC) (This editor doesn't "opt out")[reply]

Your misquote does not convey what I've stated on my User Page, and in fact says the opposite. (And please do not alter another editor's User page again; you are welcome to use Talk pages.) Perhaps that same difficulty in comprehending the written word is at the source of our disagreement in this matter, too. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that I misquoted you. Quite the contrary. Those words were taken directly from your User Page. Then you say your words mean the opposite. Does that mean that you now accept the Wiki principle of WP:Assume good faith? Somehow, I doubt it. Actually, I then stated, "Xenophrenic, are you describing yourself here?" Or are you telling all the other editors that "assuming bad faith is the norm"? Which is it, Xenophrenic? Are you discussing in bad faith? Or are you assuming all the rest of us are discussing in bad faith? You can't have it both ways. Again, Xenophrenic, those are your words repeated here. In Good Faith, Solo I Fatti (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said there weren't words on my User page. I said that you misquoted me. Here is what you said:

This has been an interesting discussion, although Xenophrenic is discussing in bad faith. Just for the record, Xenophrenic has stated on his User Page, "WP:Assume good faith is a Wikipedia suggested guideline, not a policy; I've chosen to opt out of this one...... assuming bad faith is the norm." Xenophrenic, are you describing yourself here? Hardly a good foundation to conduct a discussion to reach consensus....

Here is what my User page actually says:

As a general rule, I try to avoid making assumptions. WP:Assume good faith is a Wikipedia suggested guideline, not a policy; I've chosen to opt out of this one. I will still interact with proper civility and respect, as required, but be advised that I have left all assumptions about your intentions at the door where they belong. As taught to me by wikipedians of elevated standing and poor judgement when I first started editing here, [1][2][3], assuming bad faith is the norm. I will base my 'faith' on available evidence only.

You state that I am "discussing in bad faith", then misquote my User page, with the intent to support that fabrication. What part of I try to avoid making assumptions —or— I have left all assumptions about your intentions at the door —or— I will base my 'faith' on available evidence only did you have difficulty comprehending? You know, the context and salient points that you conveniently left out of your deceptive misquote of my User page.

Please refrain from further personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor. It will save us a lot of unnecessary time and drama on the Administrator's noticeboard. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from one of my other posts, "My interest is solely in the accuracy of the article, not picking fights with other editors." When the discussion isn't going his way, Xenophrenic, responds with sarcasm, threats, attempts to bully and belittle other editors, and more. Xenophrenic repeatedly reverts other editor's work, then accuses them of edit warring and threatens to get them banned.... I stand by my statement, "Xenophrenic is discussing in bad faith." In Good Faith, Solo I Fatti (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting perspective, but I disagree, and I ask you to please consider the following. I do repeatedly revert other editor's edits when they do not conform to Wikipedia's editing requirements -- been doing it for years, and I'll continue to do so. I understand that having your edits reverted can be frustrating, and to an editor with only 25 mainspace edits like yourself, can even seem like "bullying". That is a popular misconception. That's why I've tried to explain the justification for those reverts on the article talk page and in edit summaries, and cited the relevant Wikipedia policies that support those reverts.

I don't understand what you mean by "When the discussion isn't going his way..." I've made 7 posts total on that discussion board starting on Jan. 9th, each time requesting that you provide reliable sources to support your edits, and nothing more. I'm not involved in whatever arguments the rest of you are having about the subject matter, so there is no "his way" to my share of the discussions there. I've simply explained my edits, requested reliable sources and waited.

I've also certainly never threatened to get anyone "banned"; I'm not an Admin, and even Admins can't "get them banned" -- an editor's actions do. If you meant to say "blocked", I can't do that either. I did, however, place a cautionary notice on your talk page that explained that you should be discussing your edits and resolving the concerns rather than edit-warring. There were no threats involved; that's actually standard procedure to inform new editors that haven't previously been advised against edit warring -- and I saw no such previous advisory on your talk page. It wasn't a threat to have you blocked; it was intended to keep you from getting yourself blocked.

Hopefully that gives you a better understanding of what has transpired. I haven't made any threats; I haven't bullied or belittled; and there isn't any "his way" for my my part in the discussion -- I've simply been requesting that edits to the article adhere to Wikipedia's policies. There's certainly no "faith" involved in my discussions, good, bad or otherwise, so I wouldn't even know how to address that. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've got to admit that you're a clever editor. I'll not speak to your ethics. I shouldn't respond to flame-bait, nor "Feed the Trolls", but feel obligated to explain that it was not I making personal attacks.

A fundamental principle of Wikipedia is: "Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints. "

Nevertheless, in my attempts to discuss (on the Talk Page) the "sting" issue in good faith, I feel I was subjected to:

1. Uncivil behavior and comments

2. False accusations of violating Wiki policy

3. False accusations of edit warring when another editor was starting an edit war

4. Deleting this editor’s work (on the discussion page)

5. Demands of “reliable sources” for discussion page (where it’s not required)

6. Sarcasm and other techniques to intimidate other editors (bullying)

7. Acting as agent provocateur (flame-baiting), attempting to provoke other editors

8. Openly refusing to assume good faith

9. Failing to follow Wikipedia:Etiquette (many different violations)

10. Deleting and/or removing text from a Talk page without archiving it

11. Deleting useful content from the discussion page

12. Non-productive aggressive behavior

13. Continuing an edit war through alternative means

14. Deliberate flaming

15. Editors acting authoritatively as though they were administrators when they are merely editors like myself.

16. Editors acting like they "own" the article contrary to Wiki policy

17. Tag Teamed

A thorough reading of the various postings at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:ATF_gunwalking_scandal (including the deleted discussion content) will clearly show the aggressive and disruptive behavior.

Personally, I hereby resolve to be a better editor; not to respond to Trolls, flaming, flame-bait or unreasonable demands from other editors.

Now, Xenophrenic, if you are willing to "work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints", and Forgive and forget, then I look forward to a productive discussion, and stand ready to try to build a better article. If not, then we should simply "agree to differ" and move on. Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]