Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Blanking userpages of blocked editors is not necessarily gravedancing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

revert war

[edit]

It is unbecoming of an admin to engage in revert war agains two persons without using talk page. If you are too busy to engage in a civilized discussion, please go away and do more important things.

Now to the issue: the contested part actually explains the depth of the issue and why the essay was written. After all, if there are ony 2-3 reverts upon the 'grave', then no big deal. The real problem is when it sluggishly drags for years. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this turd is a thinly disguised rationale for gravedancing. if Burp wants to control the content, I'll happily userfy it for him. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in you userfying anything, Merridew. Your long history of community bans, global account locks, blocks and using abusive sockpuppets leaves you in no position whatsoever to be making judgement calls, much less personal attacks. Balph Eubank ✉ 21:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
revert again, and I will userfy it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's way out of line. There's more than one person who wants it that way and so far, the only reasoned argument here is coming from Staszek Lem. You and BA are edit warring and frankly, I agree with the statement about your personal attacks. Now please quit it and discuss it here like you're supposed to do? The Garbage Skow (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, yeah; i get way out of line rather often. but fear not, nikki will be back and she always wins her edit wars ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to discuss. On one hand you have Nikkimaria who thought it was better to truncate the description, and on the other hand, you have myself and Staszek who disagree and think the explanation is important to understanding the essay. Merridew doesn't care at all, he's just being a dick and treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Someone should tell him Nikki doesn't need any White Knights to fight her "battles", and that she probably doesn't even view this as a "battle". It's also hilarious that someone who has been abusing socks for years and was once thought so disruptive that a Meta steward locked him out globally across all projects has been welcomed back and allowed to resume disruption. His behavior is exactly why this essay is needed. - Balph Eubank ✉ 13:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
…’cause you so want to dance on my user page, right? (nb: Mark Arsten actually knows my true history and status, which you're quite missing;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your true history as someone who was once banned from Wikipedia, someone who once had all of their accounts globally locked, someone who has abused socks for years? This essay is needed precisely because people like that and their enablers always use bogus accusations of "gravedancing" in all cases when they've been blocked/banned yet again and want to save face. The fact that abusive sockmasters have enablers doesn't make adding a template to a userpage "gravedancing". The essay makes the distinction between legit gravedancing and the bogus claims that people with mobs of entrenched friends use to try and save face when they've cocked up yet again. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's really funny that you think Nikkimaria is an enabler of Br'er. This might be the first time I've seen them agree about anything. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I laughed about that, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC) (but see just below, for better;)[reply]
Nice straw man Mark, who said anything about Nikkimaria enabling Merridew?? More empty twisting of words to suit an agenda. You and Merridew make a great couple. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have my sincerest apologies for misrepresenting you. What I should have said was "It's really funny that you think that Br'er is Nikkimaria's white knight". Also, we're not gay--not that there's anything wrong with that. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
“legit gravedancing” Really? I though the theme here was that stomping on user pages is not necessarily “gravedancing” – but now you're saying it is, but that it's “legit gravedancing”. Thanks for that ;) And right on the turd-essay's talk page. Oh, I *asked* that my old accounts be locked, but what do you know… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(move to Wikipedia:Blanking userpages of blocked editors is legitimate gravedancing? Sometimes, at least? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC);)[reply]
Way to twist my words, Merridew/Davenbelle, formerly banned abusive sockpuppeteer. Looks like you're a master of the Straw Man too. The distinction is between that which is actually gravedancing and that which is not and you know that perfectly well. But why should I bother trying to discuss with someone who has a clear bias? I don't gain anything by putting a template on a userpage, but banned sockmasters sure seem to have something to lose: face. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
of course you get something out of it; enjoyment. 18:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, more lies perpetuated by people who want to save face. - Balph Eubank ✉ 20:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not my concern, at all. i'm moar about in-your-face. i coulda used another e-word… ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
which of those is “legit gravedancing”? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This essay discusses what constitutes gravedancing and what does not. Repeated straw men and WP:IDHT just add further legitimacy to it as regards people who abuse terms like "gravedancing", among others. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
/you/ used the term “legit gravedancing”, just above, and I'm asking for a definition of what constitutes “legit gravedancing”. I don't see an answer to that. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a couple passes at it but you don't seem to be listening. Here's a link that will hopefully fill you in. See #4. [1] - Balph Eubank ✉ 20:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bzzz; I /know/ what “legit” means, silly. /you/ used it on “gravedancing”, which was a /slip/, an acknowledgement that you do in fact view it as “gravedancing”, not a mere procedural tagging. your-bad ;>. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I need no knights, but you need no swords – keep the discussion focused on content, please, whatever your personal feelings about others involved. Now, to business: I reverted your addition for two main reasons. First, "This may continue for years after the original block/ban was enacted, with multiple editors, long after everyone else has ceased to remember who the blocked editor was, and even in the case of someone who never knew the blockee, or began editing well after the blockee was blocked." seems to me to be a bit convoluted, to the point of being more confusing than helpful. Is there a more concise way of wording it that would perhaps convey this idea more clearly? The second bit, though – "who think their friend is a unique flower, who was blocked/banned unfairly and doesn't deserve all this horrible rude treatment, such as blanking their (unused) userpage" – is excessively combative, and superfluously so. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's lovely someone is willing to discuss it. I'd be happy to rewrite the two sentences in question if you find them confusing or combative. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the lede, hopefully this addresses your concerns. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked it a bit more, see what you think. I'm also not sure about the percentages – unless those are actually based on real numbers, I'd be inclined to replace them with "most" and "a few". Thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes, no need to just make something up and pretend like it's a real statistic. Frietjes (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are fine Nikki and It's fine to change the percentages to "most" and "a few". I agree that that is better. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the hatting of this discussion, which was entirely inappropriate. You not only hatted a discussion in which you were involved; you added to it and then hatted it in the same edit. Have it userfyed if you want to control the talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or define

[edit]

This essay repeatedly uses the word gravedancing as if it had a recognized meaning. This is bizarre. There is no Wikipedia:Gravedancing article and the term gravedancing is undefined. Not only that, the links it has are entirely unhelpful at ascertaining its meaning for example, some animals are more equal than others. I recommend that unless Wikipedia:Gravedancing is created within 14 days, this essay should be deleted, or moved to its author's sandbox space. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, since you don't understand it it must be deleted. Typical Wikipediot drivel. Have you tried reading the first three paragraphs of the essay, which clearly define "gravedancing"? 104.254.90.58 (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we really do actually need a full definition of what grave-dancing is. This essay gives only one example of what might be gravedancing and it's real topic is what is NOT grave-dancing. Really the phenomenon of grave-dancing is goes much further than this - it is, for example, an editor going after the articles that the previously-blocked person started and worked on, or an editor going through all the disputes that they had with the blocked person and editing them to conform to their POV. This is disruptive editing because a consensus previously established with the involvement of a blocked person does not automatically become invalid when they are blocked, nor is all the work they've previously done immediately invalid either. I think I could take a stab at writing such an essay but the redirect would have to be shifted from this page. FOARP (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There, done. I've also boldly shifted the redirect shortcut from this page, since this page wasn't actually a full definition of gravedancing. FOARP (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to userspace

[edit]

In my opinion, this essay, an expression of personal resentment, would be much better in the userspace of the creator. And then they wouldn't have to try to prevent other users from editing it, which would surely be convenient for them. (I know the user isn't active now. But that's hardly a reason for dignifying this as a Wikipedia essay.) Pinging Anomalocaris|, who suggest a move as one alternative just above. Bishonen | talk 10:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Blanking_userpages_of_blocked_editors_is_not_necessarily_gravedancing&oldid=1243806581"