Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/JonGwynne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 How much? 2 Disappointing exchange with Jon 3 Somewhat Sad. 4 Wikilove

[edit] How much?

Question for Ed Poor and Silverback: How does a user deal with another user who adopts a sneering insulting atitude and continues it in edit after edit on talk pages and revert summaries? When has it (sunk?) to the level requiring an RfC? How much insulting behavior are we supposed to ignore? Surely there is something the arbcom, or whoever, can do to stop the barrage of insults. WMV has been very patient with this mess. Others would have left in disgust. How many good potential editors do we lose because of insulting behavior such as this? Vsmith 00:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

JonGwynne was rather free with his name calling on the Crichton talk page. I had not thoroughly reviewed that before. I generally ignore name calling, and try to respond to any substance. Funny thing is, I think WMC was wrong on Crichton and is too deferential to qualifications and consensus. However, I don't think the "cause" is served by JonGwynne's name calling, personal attacks and peevishness. Based on his Crichton behavior I will move to full endorsement.--Silverback 11:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 14:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Thanks, I appreciate that.

I think Silverback and Vsmith may be mistaken. I would like to thank Vsmith for using the phrase "sneering insulting atitude" [sic]. That is an excellent, though typgraphically flawed, description of WMC's tone. The name-calling and personal attacks on the Crichton talk page are from WMC, not directed at him. I point particularly to him calling Crichton "silly", "daft" or "willfully ignorant" as well as referring to his books as "potboilers". Not exactly what one would consider the civil behvavior about which WMC is continually (what was the word he used on the MC page?) "bleating". (Source: WMC comment dated 15:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)). And don't let's even get started on his attempts to censor other people's statements in the talk page. If I felt like being rude and insulting, I could use many of the WMC's other statements against him. I could, for example, say that I think something should be done about WMC's "silly", "daft" or "willfully ignorant" posts as well as the "potboilers" he posts here as articles. But, I wouldn't do that because it would consitute a personal attack. Unlike WMC, I don't engage in personal attacks. --JonGwynne 14:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disappointing exchange with Jon

This was originally on the RFC page:

And who gave you permission to move it? You can either move it back yourself or I'll do it for you.--JonGwynne 18:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. FULL endorsement The bit about Dr. Connolley "claiming" to have a PhD and "not being a good teacher" violate the Wikipedia:no personal remarks policy. But the "evidence of trying to deal with this without resorting to an RFC" section is terribly thin, so I see no reason for the arbcom to get involved at this point. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 22:45, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, but I'm confused as to what your problem is. I apologized already for the mistake I mad about WMC's credentials and I corrected my statement. He doesn't claim to have a PhD, he claims to have a Doctorate. I don't see how that constitutes a "personal remark". I don't doubt his credentials, I'm just saying that I haven't personally examined/evaluated them. It is a simple, factual statement. I also don't see what is wrong with me saying he isn't a good teacher. Lots of people aren't good teachers. It doesn't make them bad people. Just because a person knows a lot about something, that doesn't necessarily mean to say that they're good at passing that information on to others. I'm sure we've all had unfortunate experiences in classrooms and lecture halls with people who were probably very good at what they did but not so good at explaining things to others. So, since we've established that your claim I violated the Wikipedia:no personal remarks policy is without basis, will you retract it?--JonGwynne 22:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suppose I said I don't think Jon has any balls. Could I justify this insult by saying that "I don't doubt his masculinity" but am "just saying I haven't persnally examined/evaluated" his balls? Man, I'd be RFC'ed in a heartbeat!

I think you missed my point. I didn't say I doubted WMC's credentials. I didn't for one moment deny their existence. For you to try argue otherwise is simply dishonest.--JonGwynne 18:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Or suppose I said I don't think Jon is a good writer. "It doesn't make him a bad person. We've all read articles by people who probably know a lot about their field of expertise but are not so good at explaining things to others in writing." I daresay this would be labeled a personal remark and I would be chided for making it; especially because as an admin (and bureaucrat) I'm supposed to set a higher standard.

I would have no problem with anyone who said they didn't think I was a good writer. That's simply a subjective personal opinion. Anyone who labelled it a personal attack would be disagreed with by me and rightfully so. You're really reaching here Ed. I think you're looking for something to be bothered about.--JonGwynne 18:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The gist of my comment here is that Jon defends himself by giving further offense. If I were on the arbcom, I'd give him a week off from editing all Wikipedia articles. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 18:35, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

You need to learn the difference between giving offense and taking offense. Ooops, maybe I shouldn't have said that. Now you're liable to try to twist that into some imaginary attempt by me to inpugn your intelligence or education or something (none of which I did). Or perhaps I should complain about you being pompous with your snide little "disappointing" crack in the header here. What do you think? Or maybe we would all be better served if you were given the benefit of the doubt that you weren't intentionally trying to be snide, pompous or conscending. You don't seriously think that what you write provides no scope for people to take offense, do you? --JonGwynne 18:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LOL, don't worry: I mentally translated "you need to learn the difference" into "please consider the difference" -- it's a common idiom. (The laugh I got from that cancels the offense you gave by liable to try to twist that -- so far, so good.)

I think I'm entitled to say I was disappointed by our exchange, but if you're offended to hear that then I stand ready to apologize. Much of what I say either provides food for thought or scope for people to take offense. The trick is to stay on good terms with one's co-workers.

Of course you're entitled to say that you're disappointed. I wasn't offended at all. Your disappointment is your own. I was just making the point that, had I applied the same standards to that statement as are being applied to mine, then I would be entitled to take offense and file some sort of formal complaint if that was the way I resolved disputes. Instead, I chose to take the "what the hell, they're just words" attitude which it sounds like WMC still needs to learn. Put another way... I just can't picture him as the kind of boss who his subordinates invite for beers after work.--JonGwynne 01:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I take your implied offer of giving me the benefit of the doubt, as a sign that you would prefer to avoid knocking heads with me. I would be glad if it also means that you are willing to stop knocking heads with Dr. C. and the others, too. Here's another example... titles. I don't see that they mean anything here. If I wanted to make a thing of it, I'd ask to be called Dr. Gwynne. But, you know what? Who cares? Maybe it is because he's British that he's more of a stickler for titles. Maybe it is a cultural thing, that's OK. I don't like steak and kidney pie, maybe he isn't so fond of burgers. Viva la difference, eh?--JonGwynne 01:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Careful attention to the rhetorical likes and dislikes of others is all we can give each other here. Please be a giver, and all will be well. :-) --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 19:27, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I'm happy not to tangle. Despite what some have assumed, I'm not here looking for a scrap. I give back what I get. If someone wants to butt heads with me, that's how I'll respond. If people don't like what I'm saying to them, they should take a closer look at what they're saying to me. That Swedish bloke summed it up best. He and I have met on other boards - sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing but we've always been good-natured and good sports about it. I just wish that some of the others here could do the same. Even when the rhetoric gets warm, there's always a wink and a nudge in what I write - though I realize not everyone may see it.--JonGwynne 01:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Somewhat Sad.

You people provoke each other, then you complain when the other people are getting upset. Perhaps you could just stop provoking each other. Aren't we supposed to be writing an encyclopedia? What does this have to do with it? — Cortonin | Talk 04:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilove

The principle of WikiLove, as espoused by Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales, requires a higher standard of conduct than:

• I give back what I get.

Be that as it may, you're the last one to lecture anyone on conduct here, so what's your point?--JonGwynne 21:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I personally disagree that a statement which did not give offense could even theoretically entitle someone to take offense.

Regarless, you did make several statements that were offensive. The fact that I chose not to take that offense is to your benefit. Do you really want to press the point?--JonGwynne 21:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jon, your idea of give and take seems to be incompatible with mine. And I predict it will continue to get you in trouble at this website. I think you change change your tune -- or stop posting here. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 19:17, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

My attitude only gets me in touble with the petulant and the peevish. As to your statement directing me to "change my tune" or "stop posting here"... Is that an order? <ROTFLMAO!> Relax Ed, you're taking yourself way too seriously. We had a nice discussion going, and one I wouldn't mind continuing if you feel up to it. Your move. --JonGwynne 21:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me more patience than I've ever shown me. You have thereby 'beaten me at my own game' - to the benefit of us all. Gosh, after all this courtesy I can't even remember what we were originally wrangling over. So maybe it's been resolved already. Best wishes! --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 01:47, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)