User talk:Abslch

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search

RE: Design discussion

Of course the majority of the argument stemmed from me. Because I was the only one who actually stood up to Zoey. Everyone just went into a "Okay, Zoey wants indicators, so let's do indicators!"-mode. Totally ignoring that she was the only one who deemed this necessary in the first place.

I openly admit that I'm the only one arguing on that page. But I'm also maintaining that I'm right, and I will also point out that Zoey, the one who caused all this trouble, was notably absent after she aggressively reverted the original design.

How is it "for the sake of the wiki, and the lgpedia and the whole community" if everybody just silently accepts Zoey as their personal dictator?

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 16:25, 10 May 2008 (CDT)
Ren, I understand that you want to defend yourself, and I respect that. However, the way you are doing it is not acceptable. I find it ironic that in response to Abslch's post, you do the very thing that he/she pointed out you should not be doing: attacking other users personally. As I've said many times, I. Do. Not. Care. if you have an issue with Zoey. That does not give you a right to call her a "dictator" or personally attack her in any way. If you would like, we are willing to discuss this with you privately, if that is what it takes to get you to stop. Look, to be honest, I am just getting sick of this. We have warned you many times not to personally attack other users, and yet you continue to do so. Either you do not realize you are doing it (which I find unlikely) or you are blatantly ignoring LGPedia policy and doing it anyway. If this is what you are doing, we will be forced to take action if the personal attacks continue. Again, if you would like to discuss this privately, that is completely fine. Just please, don't force us to take drastic measures because you are unable to keep from personally attacking others.--Jonpro 18:44, 10 May 2008 (CDT)
And I find it ironic that you keep claiming this to be a "personal attack", yet, so far, nobody has shown any proof that I am factually wrong - it was Zoey alone who wanted the indicators, and it was Zoey who ignored consent and pre-warnings and aggressively reverted the page. What do you expect me to do? Artifically include you and Pheon and say "the administration" did it? That'd be incorrect. If you can prove I'm wrong, feel free to do so. But as far as I can see, all I'm doing is retelling what happened. It's not my fault Zoey acted alone - but since she did, I have no other choice than to mention her alone.
You also show several misconception that I feel the need to clear up:
  1. I don't care if you care. Abslch directed a comment personally to me, and I replied to him personally. I even avoided putting this on the discussion page, and went here instead. This is a personal conversation between me and Abslch. To say "I. Do. Not. Care." when I didn't say a single syllable to you is more than presumptuous. If you don't care about what I say to Abslch, then don't read it! (Did I mention how impolite it is to hijack our conversation like this?)
  2. I am not "defending" myself. I am very aware that all of you are going to bow to Zoey and do exactly what she wants just to get this over with. But I'm not going to play the good little sheep. Zoey had no reason to revert my change, she had no grounds to claim I tried to "overrule admins", and her allegations I was disrespecting her and even everyone else on this wiki were entirely bogus. Yet instead of actually supporting these wild accusations with factual evidence, she just waltzed in here, reverted what she didn't like, and vanished again. Because she knows herself she had no grounds for that revert. I made sure there was maximum consent on the revision. I changed large parts of the design to fit it to everybody's taste. I gave two advanced notices. There was nothing wrong with the way I proceeded (which you yourself actually admitted on the other talk page), and the large majority of people was happy. Zoey's "OMG we need link indicators" had exactly the same amount of backers as the "I think maybe the background needs another color than white." suggestion - yet I don't see an army of people trying to fix the background to Krisser's liking. And why not? Because Krisser is not an admin. Because Krisser cannot revert the change and ban dissenters. Check the discussion, Jon. Nobody was all "YES, ZOEY! I agree whole heartedly!". Afterwards, after her revert and wild accusations, model came forward and said "yeah, I agree". But he's the only one. Everyone else is just trying to find a solution because Zoey has proven that if she doesn't get her solution, nothing goes. It's as simple as that. People are not looking for a solution because they agree there is a problem - they are looking for a solution because they have no other choice. And at the same time, more and more comments keep pouring in that people like the layout...
    To return to your assumption - I am not "defending" myself. For one, I have no reason to defend my actions - as I outlined above, I did everything in cooperation with the community and with more than a week advanced notice. I did nothing wrong, therefore I have nothing to defend. Secondly, I know full well nothing I say will make any of you stray away from the flock. I will simply not allow the administration to cover up Zoey's aggressive suppression tactics as my fault. Had she wanted to stop the design as it was, she could've said something in the 11 days the notice was up. Or she could've said from the start "under no circumstances this is going live before I get my fix". She did neither. She waited until 21 minutes before live time, and then was still alone with her opinion. If she was any other user, there wouldn't even be a discussion about this. Had this been nancy, or shi, or anyone else, you'd all agree and say "well, sorry X, but nobody else saw a problem". The only reason this is an issue is because Zoey has the power to make it an issue. Zoey is the one who acted out of line here, and I will not let you put the blame on me. As long as the administration of this wiki tries to make up offenses out of thin air to get rid of me, I will talk back.
  3. Lastly, I have played too many shadow games on this wiki to discuss anything regarding it in private. Say what you want to say out in the open, or don't say it at all. The only reason you could want to do it in private is denial anyway.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 21:51, 10 May 2008 (CDT)
First of all, when I said "defend yourself", I meant against Abslch's criticism of you on the redesign talk page. He/she pointed you out specifically so it's understandable that you want to make your case. That's all I meant. And it's ridiculous to say "I did nothing wrong, therefore I have nothing to defend." You defend yourself when someone else thinks you did something wrong, not when you think you did. I only defend my actions when I think I'm right.
Secondly, one of two things is happening here: either you did not understand the intent of my post or you are purposely arguing about something else to avoid the issue. I thought I made my the point of my post very obvious, but let me explain it again. I'm not arguing about who was right on the redesign issue. I am calling you out on an official pedia policy, which is "no personal attacks". You say, "I find it ironic that you keep claiming this to be a "personal attack", yet, so far, nobody has shown any proof that I am factually wrong", yet that's not ironic at all. Whether you are factually right or wrong has no bearing on what I'm trying to say. That's not the issue I brought up. The issue is that you are personally attacking another pedia user, something that is simply not acceptable on the LGPedia. It doesn't matter that it's Zoey, it's just she is the one you have chosen to attack. Again, even if you are right about the redesign issue, that gives you no justification for calling Zoey a "dictator" or being disrespectful in any way.
Thirdly, I have every right to "hijack" your conversation when what you say is in violation of pedia policy. Again, this makes me think you're not understanding my post, or purposely trying to make it out to be something else. And if that's what you're doing, it's not going to work forever. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I think I've made my point very obvious here and in the past, yet you continue to ignore what I say.--Jonpro 10:15, 11 May 2008 (CDT)
Well, no matter when you defend yourself or how you define it, I don't feel like I'm defending myself, and I don't feel like I have to defend something, either. So, whatever.
As for your second point, you're still trying to paint this as a purposeful attack against Zoey. If you can come up with a good way how I can reference the side of this discussion which unnecessarily and aggressively reverted the page even though everything went in coordination with the community and according to policy without saying "Zoey" - fine. Tell me. But until you can, the fact is that Zoey was the one who had the problem, and Zoey was the one that reverted. If there is only one person on the other side, I have no other choice but to call her by name. This has nothing to do with Zoey personally. I love Zoey the girl. But Zoey the admin failed majorly that day, and Zoey the admin was the only person that failed that day. Zoey the admin is also the one who is notably absent from the discussion she forced upon us. So unless you can come up with an ambiguous, non-personal term that describes Zoey's position and actions without calling her by name, I have no other choice but to keep saying "Zoey".
Last point, you may have a right to interrupt anti-policy activities, but for one, I contest such activities were going on, and for two, that doesn't change the fact that "I. Do. Not. Care." implies that I was telling you in any way, and that was simply not the case - thus, my point stands: I don't care if you don't care - I didn't address you. I was talking to Abslch.
I'd respond longer, but I'm kinda drunk, so if you want more, wait until tomorrow.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 15:33, 11 May 2008 (CDT)
I don't have a problem with your pointing out Zoey specifically if it's her actions you have a problem with. I'm not asking you to dance around what you're trying to say. And I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt when you say it's nothing personal against her. However, the way you say things makes it seem like it is. On the redesign talk page, you accused her of "[fucking] over community discussion and consensus." That's not really the most respectful language and you're accusing her, personally, of not caring about the desires of the community or the way the pedia is supposed to work. You went on to say that the only reason things weren't going ahead is because she was "pissed off because [you] didn't give [her] the opportunity to shoot it down in silence." Again, that's a harsh accusation. Later, you claim that we are "[cowering] in fear of Zoey's wrath". This implies that Zoey is somehow forcing us to act the way she wants, which, again, is quite an accusation to make. I could go on, but hopefully you see the point. Now, like I said, maybe you really don't have anything personal against Zoey, but the way you talk about her makes it seem like you do. And I'm not the only one who sees things this way. (Example: Look whose talk page we're discussing this on.) So all I'm asking is that you make sure you focus your criticisms on the discussion and what should be done, instead of going after one person in a way that appears vindictive to people reading it.
Oh, and about the "I. Do. Not. Care." thing, maybe that was a bit harsh, and I know you were not directing it at me. The point I was trying to make is that it didn't matter to me if you had a personal problem with Zoey because that gives you no right to attack her. The way I said it was just a way to vent frustration at the issue and I realize now that my frustration is really irrelevant.--Jonpro 23:23, 11 May 2008 (CDT)

Jonpro said:
[...] On the redesign talk page, you accused her of "[fucking] over community discussion and consensus." That's not really the most respectful language and you're accusing her, personally, of not caring about the desires of the community or the way the pedia is supposed to work.
And I stand by that. The revision history and the remnants of discusson on that page show quite well that this layout was a community effort, that we all worked towards a common goal, and I believe the comments section speaks for itself. As I pointed out above - Zoey's complaint about icons had just as much backing as the suggestion to change the background color. Yet I don't see a large week-long discussion about what to change the background color to. There was consent. There was a long discussion that lead to the design I put live. And Zoey overruled all of that and reverted. How is that not "[fucking] over community discussion and consensus"?
Jonpro said:
You went on to say that the only reason things weren't going ahead is because she was "pissed off because [you] didn't give [her] the opportunity to shoot it down in silence." Again, that's a harsh accusation.
So far, I did not see her contest it. And it's been three weeks since I said that. Then again, I wouldn't expect her to admit that, either.
Jonpro said:
Later, you claim that we are "[cowering] in fear of Zoey's wrath". This implies that Zoey is somehow forcing us to act the way she wants, which, again, is quite an accusation to make.
Again, same example - you had one vote for changing the icons, and one vote for changing the background color. Did Krisser revert the layout, yell and make up offenses, and then everybody jumped and started to change the background? Nope.
Just check it out - look at the course of the Character Icons discussion. The initial discussion did not even run 24 hours, then everybody had moved on to other things already. I posted updates on other stuff, and six days later, on my own accord, without any further suggestion, I added more overlay stuff to appease Zoey. And what happened? Nothing. For another 6 days, nobody cared. Then, Nancy said she liked it, Zoey said she didn't like it, and FH14 suggested a different solution? ...and then? Right! Silence. For another 10 days, until Zoey showed up and inquired if it was being worked on.
Do you see the pattern? The character icons are only an issue when Zoey is around. Every single time, as soon as Zoey left, the discussion died. Simply because nobody else cared.
So, I stand by that accusation - this is not an issue because anybody thought it was necessary. This is an issue because Zoey made very clear the design would not go live without the indicators she wants, and left the rest of the community no other choice but to do her bidding in order to get the design live.
Jonpro said:
I could go on, but hopefully you see the point.
I will go on.
Jonpro said:
Now, like I said, maybe you really don't have anything personal against Zoey, but the way you talk about her makes it seem like you do. And I'm not the only one who sees things this way. (Example: Look whose talk page we're discussing this on.)
Well, so far, all you two (you and Abslch) have done is complained that I argue - neither of you has shown that anything I said was wrong. Especially considering that, no matter how much you'd like to talk it away, half of it was actually valid criticism about the approach - the original problem was that Zoey wanted to make absolutely, 100% clear the icons were links - and then model came up with a solution that required deduction and testing on a wider community. In other words: It does not fit Zoey's requirements. It's not my fault model was of a different opinion, and then started Apple evangelism. Of course, Since Zoey magically disappeared since she brought chaos and destruction, and she won't dare to pull the same shit with you as with me, it doesn't matter. The half-assed version that satisfies neither side will stay.
Point is, instead of continuously claiming "personal attack!!!!" and pretending I'm wrong by default, maybe you should get up and actually show that I'm wrong, if you think so. Saying the truth is not a personal attack.
Jonpro said:
So all I'm asking is that you make sure you focus your criticisms on the discussion and what should be done, instead of going after one person in a way that appears vindictive to people reading it.
Zoey abused her power to force her will upon the community, reverted a redesign made in accordance with tradition, policy and the will of the community, and then made up ridiculous and so far unproven allegations against me to justify her actions.
If you think I'll just shut up and watch Zoey ruin my reputation to save hers, you're wrong.
Jonpro said:
Oh, and about the "I. Do. Not. Care." thing, maybe that was a bit harsh, and I know you were not directing it at me. The point I was trying to make is that it didn't matter to me if you had a personal problem with Zoey because that gives you no right to attack her. The way I said it was just a way to vent frustration at the issue and I realize now that my frustration is really irrelevant.
Allegations that I overruled admins, disrespected the community and acted without consensus, paired with a threat of "consequences", are not "personal problems", and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop claiming that.
It's not my fault Zoey doesn't have the balls to come out and admit none of that was true. But until she does, her accusations stand there and all I can do is hold against them.
Do you think I'm stupid? Do you think I don't see her on recent changes? Do you think I don't realize she purposefully avoids the discussion? She knows full well she has nothing to back up her bullshit, so she simply doesn't even try. And all the while, I'm sitting in limbo, with a fucked up reputation, on the brink of getting banned.
Silence is not proof. The fact that Zoey doesn't say anything does not automatically mean she was right. I have shown you the history of the issue above and linked you to the vast amount of comments that approved of the design.
What has Zoey shown to you that justified her actions?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 03:19, 12 May 2008 (CDT)
Apparently you still do not see the point of what I'm trying to say. You ask me to show you how Zoey was right, but what I'm saying is whether or not Zoey acted correctly is beside the point. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. In a previous post on this page, I said, "Whether you are factually right or wrong has no bearing on what I'm trying to say. That's not the issue I brought up." And I stand by that. Why do you have to turn this into a discussion about who acted rightly about the redesign issue? I have not addressed that issue because that is not the point. The point is the way in which you make your accusations. Let me repeat that: you have every right to challenge what someone else does, head admin or not, and bring up with the rest of the community something you think that person has done wrong. What you do not have the right to do is to be disrespectful to that person because you are upset about the way they acted. It is possible to have a disagreement with someone yet still show respect toward them.
You say, "Well, so far, all you two (you and Abslch) have done is complained that I argue". That's just simply not true. Abslch said, "It just seems like you have a really bad attitude and are taking out your personal problems with Zoey out on all of us." Now, he/she did also mention that you argue, but he/she also brought up the issue of how you argue, your "attitude" throughout the discussion. Oddly enough, Zoey also mentioned your attitude ("if the attitude displayed in these posts continues, [...]") and Pheon did as well ("[...] there's simply no need to bring that kind of language and attitude here.") And if you read my posts, you'll see I've brought up the same issue.
You say, "Saying the truth is not a personal attack." Clearly you don't understand what I mean by a "personal attack" then. Basically, I define a personal attack as anything disrespectful toward another user; Wikipedia has some good suggestions on how not to be disrespectful. If you would simply be civil, it would make the discussion you're trying to have (about who was right and who was wrong on the redesign issue) possible without things turning into one big heated argument.--Jonpro 10:02, 12 May 2008 (CDT)
Still trying to turn this into "gade is attacking Zoey!!! :O", I see. And still you fail to show how anything of what I say was factually incorrect and purely an attack on her person. Thus, I maintain my previous position - saying the truth is not a personal attack. As I have shown above, the "harsh accusations" I raise aren't just "accusations", they're retellings of what happened - you can read it for yourself in the discussion. Thus, none of them are personal attacks, and thus, your point is moot.
Nice try on the "attitude" recital. Might've worked elsewhere. Luckily, here we have the whole discussion archived, which is why I can prove that 0 out of 4 people proved that anything was wrong with my attitude, and that 3 out of 4 people didn't even follow up on their accusatory post. You want to point out how many people question my attitude? Fine. I'm pointing out that 75% of these people simply put out the allegation my attitude is wrong and then leave. If I said "Jon wears pink dresses at night!" and then left, would that automatically make me right?
Once more, I'm forced to repeat what I already said - silence is not proof.
Then again, this user's "opinions" are irrelevant anyway. It was a pretty good tactic, I'll give you that, and I hate to admit that it took a while until I caught on. But a tip for the future - if you want to make use of a sockpuppet, don't sign with two names from the same IP. At least not on the same page.
Just out of curiosity - is it your sockpuppet or Zoey's?
Back on topic, I acknowledge that you keep claiming I'm personally attacking Zoey, and that you're questioning my attitude. But your opinion is hardly proof of any wrongdoings. Zoey hasn't said a word in three weeks even though she's clearly around, so apparently she doesn't have too many problems with what I'm saying. Pheon only showed up because Zoey summoned you two for support anyway, and, as far as I know, didn't repeat that accusation ever since. So...we have two users who don't debate the issue and won't repeat the accusation, one sockpuppet, and you. Sounds like a one on one to me, not a four on one. Nice try to fake support, though.
Entirely independet from that, I could of course start questioning what kind of attitude it is to violently revert valid content and to try silencing protest...
Would that make me right by default? Simply saying "Jon has a bad attitude because he yelled at me!"? Guess that means we both have a bad attitude now...
If you want this discussion to stop, quit repeating the same allegations over and over again, and actually prove that I did something wrong. But be aware that the entire discussion exists because of Zoey's actions - you can't just leave out the start and nitpick minor sentence down the road. Either you can prove I'm wrong on this issue, or you can't. There is no middle ground.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:48, 12 May 2008 (CDT)
I suppose I did not adequately explain my argument against your statement that "saying the truth is not a personal attack". I am not saying that your comments are "purely an attack on her person". That isn't how I defined a personal attack in my previous post. I said that it was saying "anything disrespectful toward another user". It has very little to do with the truth or validity of the statement, and everything to do with the tone of the statement. For example, if someone added a transcript to a video but failed to format the text correctly, included lots of <br>'s, and put the entire thing in bold, there are a few ways I could respond to that. I could put something on their talk page to this effect:
Hey, just noticed you added the transcript for <video>, and I wanted to say thanks for taking the time to do that. I went ahead and fixed it this time, but for future reference, please follow our style guidelines for video transcripts as much as possible. If you want, you can look at old video transcripts as well to give you an idea of how the format works. Again, thanks for adding the transcript and if you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page.--Jonpro 00:44, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
Alternatively, I could post something like this:
Hey, after you added that transcript the page looked horrible until I was able to go through and fix all the formatting errors. Next time follow the style guidelines.--Jonpro 00:44, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
Both messages are factually correct, and they both tell the user to follow the style guidelines from this point on. However, which user is more likely to come back and continue adding transcripts? Which user will feel more welcomed and appreciated for the effort that they did put into the pedia? I think it's obvious. And before you start saying that this is different because Zoey is not a new user and because Zoey is completely aware of how to act while this new user may not have known about the style guidelines, the only point I am making is that the truth can be spoken with respect or with disrespect; it can be said with a good attitude or with a bad attitude. That's all this analogy is meant to demonstrate. A statement does not have to be either a personal attack or a statement of fact; it can easily be both at the same time.
Now, on the sockpuppet thing, I deeply resent the accusation that one of the admins of the LGPedia is using a sockpuppet IP account to try to gain false support for an argument. That is a harsh accusation, and one that should not be taken lightly. Frankly I'm surprised you made it considering you have no proof to back it up. I mean, really, the fact that two different posts on the same page were signed with two different names does not translate in any way to the accusation that one of us is using a sockpuppet to make arguments against you. It's just a cheap shot at the administration and it's not acceptable.
Moving on, I admit that my opinion does not prove that your attitude is bad, but you also cannot assume what you are assuming here. There are more explanations for Zoey's lack of involvement in this discussion than that she doesn't care. (She could be trying to avoid a heated argument which these discussions almost end up turning into.) And you assume that Pheon's silence means that he doesn't care as well, but the fact that he hasn't edited at all in a week and a half may also indicate that he's busy with real life stuff and doesn't have time to deal with this right now. Also, consider this: perhaps users do not comment because they are afraid of getting involved in an argument with you. Suppose for a moment that what I'm saying is true, that your posts often come off as harsh and accusatory even when you are right about an issue. For people who aren't very involved in the pedia but edit occasionally, what reason would they have for pointing out your attitude even if they thought it was bad? The potential benefit is that you will not be as harsh in the future, while the potential loss is that they will get involved in a big debate with you and in the end still not change anything. The benefits do not outweigh the costs, especially for someone who can simply stop editing at any time with no consequences. If this is the actual scenario, it would also explain Abslch's "Sorry :/" and apologetic tone in his post on the redesign talk page as well as his silence now. I'm not saying this is the only explanation, but it is one that fits the situation we have here.
And as a side note, could you please explain what you mean by "violently revert"? I can only think of one type of revert, and that just involves undoing an edit someone made to a page. I'm not sure how it can be violent though.--Jonpro 00:44, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
  • You're pretty much proving my point there, in my eyes. Please explain to me how the second "quote" constitutes a "personal attack". I cannot see anything attacking in it. Yes, it's not quite as sugar-coated as the previous one, but given the way you describe the hypothetical transcript...
    • Hey, after you added that transcript the page looked horrible is entirely true, and does not "attack" anyone in any way. It is a fact that user did the hypothetical revision, and it is a fact the page looked bad afterwards. Other than these two basic facts, this part of the sentence does not include anything. No sugar coating, but no insult or attack either.
    • until I was able to go through and fix all the formatting errors. - same thing; it may not be sugar-coated, but in the end, it's a simple, true statement that expresses what was wrong, and that the hypothetical you fixed it. Yes, if you wanted to, you could phrase it nicer - but the version as is includes no insults, no attacks, no nothing. It's a factual statement. Nothing more.
    • Next time follow the style guidelines. - yes, this one would likely sound a little less angry with an added "please". But given the fact that hypothetical you just had to fix the transcript because the other guy fucked up the formatting, I don't think it's a problem it sounds slightly annoyed. Independent from whether showing unhappiness is appropriate, the fact that something is phrased imperatively does not automatically make it an insult or attack. If I say "Jon, you're parking in my spot, move your car!" - would you argue that is a "personal attack", because I failed to sugar coat my request that you move your car?
      Imperatives can be phrased nicer, but the fact that something is an imperative on its own does not make it a "personal attack".
First part: Lacking insults or personal attacks.
Second part: Lacking insults or personal attacks.
Third part: Lacking insults or personal attacks.
Would you please explain to me how that hypothetical quote violates any LGPedia policy?
And before you argue "blablabla that wasn't what I was trying to show", well it's the only thing important. I do not contest that you can phrase statements in different ways. The question is not whether I could phrase everything I say so sweetly that everybody dies of sugar rush. The question is if the way I phrased my statements in this particular discussion constitute personal attacks. And even with your overly subjective and ambiguous "disrespectful" definition, I am still not aware of having said anything which purely had the purpose to attack or insult Zoey. As far as I can see or remember, all sentences that involve Zoey's name are statements regarding her actions. They may be phrased a little unhappily, but given the fact that she's making up shit to get me banned, I think it's understandable that they're not laden with "thank you"s and "please"s. As I have shown above - the lack of additional sugar coating does not automatically make something an attack. (And in order to break this cycle, let me state this very clearly: I do understand what you're trying to say. I just think you're wrong.)
  • Of course you resent the accusation you were using a sockpuppet (and try to paint it as a "cheap shot"). It would be rather stupid of you to openly admit it - but let's look at the facts for a moment: Every other general opinion comment to that date was positive (look at the comments section). There was obviously no support for Zoey's position. Then Mr. Mysterious IP shows up, and ooooh look, he says exactly what would support Zoey! Then he's gone without a follow-up. Then in the discussion, the same thing: Look at my posts - I may not have been sugar coated, to stay with previous terminology, but I was taking part in the discussion, and I was not posting further in Take Two. I just wasn't a good little sheep that simply smiles and nods. And then, all of a sudden, even though I hadn't said anything in the discussion for five days, BAM Mr. Mysterious IP appears out of nowhere and says exactly what you would need to support forcefully removing me from the discussion, should it become necessary.
    I do not expect you to admit to doing it. Like I said, it's entirely possible it's Zoey's doing. But given the fact that the same IP posed as two different users who both just so happen to waltz in at the moment the administration needed it most, said exactly what you guys needed to gain an advantaged, and then vanished into nothingness without a second comment, you'll excuse me when I don't believe you.
  • As for explaining the silence away - it doesn't work that way. You can't just accuse me of a whole lot of offenses, threaten "consequences", and then walk away without proving. Either Zoey can prove I did something wrong, and she was right in threatening me, or she can't - if she can't, her accusations are void. But then again, if I went into the discussion and stated that, none of you would admit it, would you? Face it, this can only be closed by a conclusive administrative decision that states which side was right. So far, I'm not even getting a fair trial. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Silence is not proof. Avoiding a "heated argument" is very simple: All she has to do is admit I was acting within policy, and that there was no reason to revert, or, alternatively, make a case that proves I did behave wrongly. If it was as obvious as she pretends that I did wrong, I couldn't argue against it - if she admits I did nothing wrong, I have no reason to argue against it. The only reason this discussion still exists is because Zoey doesn't follow up on her bullshit. Her silence prolongs the discussion. As for Pheon, the same thing applies - it was clear by his timing and what he said that he agreed with the measure, so he has to justify it as much as you and Zoey have to. Simply running away is not justification. Trying to explain away his absence does not change that. 'cause, believe it or not, what's important to me is not what Pheon does outside the pedia - what's important to me is that you guys are trying to ruin my reputation and threaten "consequences". And so far, none of you could prove there was a reason to.
    You have two possibilities - either you're being dictatorial, then stop playing these games and ban me already, or you're being all nice and fuzzy and just, then give me a fucking fair trial already - which includes looking at all actions, including Zoey's original revert, judging both side's actions, and being open for the possibility that it was Zoey who fucked up, not me.
  • As for the whole "they're not posting because they're afraid of you" myth - same reply as always: Put up or shut up. Don't make up random claims and invent explanation, show me the actual users who behave that way. I could make up the same shit and say "I actually have 1000 supporters, they're all just too afraid to post because you'd ban them!" - would you believe me for one second? Show such users, or quit using them as evidence.
  • And by "violent revert" I mean the way this revert was executed - you yourself pointed out above how you can express the same thing in different ways. And it makes a big difference if you silently revert something, revert and put an explanation why, or revert, yell at the previous user, make up three different offenses, and threaten "consequences". It's the difference between erasing a new note from a whiteboard, and erasing the note and then punching the writer in the face. If she had had an actual reason to revert, she could've done so in a calm, professional manner, as she always promotes - instead, she "justified" her actions by making up bullshit and threatening me. Ironically, this is exactly what she always accuses me of doing. But I at least provide proof that I acted correctly and stay around to discuss what I say and do, whereas she just runs away without a further word.
These allegations have been standing for over three weeks. Nobody has proven any of them, and the accuser is not making herself available for trial. In any real world court, the case would long have been thrown out. It is time the Administration (and with Zoey hiding and Pheon gone, that means you) acts upon it, acknowledges the fact that the allegations have not been proven, and clears my name. This is independent from whether you think I personally attacked Zoey afterwards. This is purely about the allegation that I acted wrongly and the claim that a revert was necessary, and the fact that nobody proved it. Clear my name, or prove Zoey was right. But this constant state of unending trial is unacceptable.
We can discuss my attitude, and determine whether or not my statements qualify as "personal attacks" afterwards, in a different discussion purely for that purpose, if you wish. I won't run away from it.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 13:22, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
I can't even bear to read all this. Renegade, you are a brilliant lgpedia editor. But you can be socially retarded, sometimes. This is one of those times. My personal belief is that Zoey's revert was completely fine, and warranted; that this all has been blown way way way out of proportion; and that no one gives a fuck about this drama bullshit. I am quite sure other readers and non-editors feel the same. That is all I have to say.--Milowent 23:04, 14 May 2008 (CDT)
Milo, I understand your frustration, and I don't like this any more than the next guy. But your jab at Ren and harsh tone don't really fix the problem either. You're probably right that most people don't care about this, but it's an issue that's come up and we're doing the best we can to resolve it. If you have a better suggestion about how to go about this, I'm all ears.--Jonpro 05:05, 15 May 2008 (CDT)
We'll see how you react when you randomly get accused and threatened for no reason at all, milo. The fact that no one even responded to my request for a fair trial is quite telling.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 11:48, 15 May 2008 (CDT)
I am a little busy right now, so I haven't had time to think things through and respond in detail yet. I don't want this to be dragged on any more than you do, but it has only been a couple of days since your last post in the discussion. I promise I will address all of this as soon as I can.--Jonpro 12:15, 15 May 2008 (CDT)

The end of all of this

Look, here's how things are going to be. Renegade, I have tried to reason with you and be calm and rational throughout all of this, but the time has come when enough is enough. Zoey is the head admin here, and if she thinks that something needs to be done for the sake of the wiki, then she has the right to do it. It doesn't matter if you agree or not; it's her decision to make. Your lack of respect for her and others has gone on long enough. So, despite how much I hate to say this, if the attitude you display in your posts does not change, you will be banned. If that makes me a dictator in your eyes, then so be it; I have bigger things to think about than what you think of me.--Jonpro 02:15, 17 May 2008 (CDT)

Well, there is still no proof I did anything of what Zoey claimed, and you tellingly don't even reply to my request for a fair trial. So, yeah, "dictatorship" is pretty much the only word applying. Although you're more of a henchman, not the actual dictator.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 12:27, 17 May 2008 (CDT)
Jonpro said:
Continuing to personally attack other users and showing a general attitude of disrespect despite multiple warnings to stop.
You still fail to show where I actually disrespected anyone, you still conveniently ignore my request for a fair trial above (including the displayed willingness to talk about my "attitude"), and you still fail to prove anything Zoey said was even remotely based in reality. Yet, I'm banned. And you wonder why I consider this system dictatorial?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:33, 18 May 2008 (CDT)
Just look at the discussion on this page (not to mention many other discussions you get involved in). It is clear that because of your disrespectful attitude (which I have tried to get you to recognize yet you still do not), such a "fair trial" cannot take place. If you would be willing to avoid personally attacking people in your posts, then you would get your "fair trial". But as things stand, every argument simply turns into a long, drawn-out affair that soon has little if anything to do with the actual issue. Do you think it's a coincidence that the discussions you're involved in turn into this? It makes the pedia look bad, like we're not capable of having civil, calm discussions, and it turns people away. Not to mention that it's also in violation of LGPedia policy. All I'm asking is that you change your attitude; that's all I've been asking all along, yet you refuse to. You were warned many times, yet you did not stop. I explicitly said that you would be banned if things didn't change, and they didn't, so I followed through. I am only doing what I feel is best for the pedia overall. Again, if that makes me a dictator in your eyes, then so be it.
On an entirely separate note, it is not acceptable in any way for you to edit from another IP address after I banned your main account. It defeats the entire purpose of a ban and is in direct violation of an administrative decision. I find it ironic that you accuse either Zoey or me of using a sockpuppet and then turn around and do that very thing yourself, only for a different purpose. (And if you don't agree, since we don't have an explicit policy on sockpuppetry, check out Wikipedia's.) Also, your other edits indicate that it was not just to post a reply to my block reason that you continued editing. I have blocked the IP address you used and you are not to edit the pedia from another IP address until the ban on your main account is expired. Let me make this absolutely clear: Do not edit the LGPedia in any way or form, using any username or IP address, until your ban has expired. If you do, I will have no choice but to enforce further consequences. If you would like to respond to my post or anything else, you can send me an email or simply wait for your ban to expire, but responding anywhere on the pedia is not acceptable.--Jonpro 21:46, 18 May 2008 (CDT)
  1. It's kind of ridiculous I actually have to point this out, but editing under my own name does not qualify as sockpuppet usage. Mainly because the whole, you know, sockpuppet aspect is missing. Look up the definition of "sockpuppet" sometime. Would prevent such embarrassments in the future.
  2. Denying me a fair trial because of perceived attitute problems is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Imagine any democracy in the world did that - "nope, you don't get a trial, because you're an asshole." There would be an outcry. Whether there was community backing for the portal redesign, the revert was necessary or I followed the policies when moving the design over is entirely unrelated to whether or not you think I have an attitude problem. In addition, since Zoey claimed her revert was partially due to my attitude, denying me a fair trial because of that attitude is all the more ridiculous. It's like telling somebody "we're charging you with murder, but no, you can't defend yourself, because you're a murderer!". And you deny you're being dictatorial?
    (That is all disregarding the fact that you still didn't even bother to try proving that anything I say is actually wrong and purely a personal attack - likely because you know full well it's not the case.)
  3. I find it rather hilarious how you say my actions make the pedia look bad, when all of this is just a reaction to Zoey's unwillingness to talk about the revert, and your refusal to consider the situation fairly. Trying to blame Zoey's violent outbursts on an innocent user and then trying to cover it up (badly, I might add) makes the pedia look far worse than the fact that I oppose being the target of unproven allegations and suffering from Zoey's egocentrism. I would not have to sit here arguing with you if the administration had discussed the revert when I challenged it, and not just pretended that it was an unchangable given. Try to paint it however you like - the discussion is still there. People can look it up. All I did was oppose the revert and the way the administration tries to frame me as a scapegoat. There is nothing wrong with that. Even without the Disputing Edits Policy (which the administration conveniently didn't ratify, since it would have meant Zoey would actually have had to discuss the revert), it is not against policies to challenge a revert, and it is most certainly not against policies to defend oneself against unfounded, unproven allegations. The administration abuses its power and the lack of a defined process to force its will onto the community, and gets rid of any vocal dissent - that is making the pedia look bad, not the fact that I defend myself against your abuse.
I'm sure you'll use this edit as a convenient way to claim "I told him so!!" and suppress me further, but we both know you didn't actually think I'd let you publically spout these lies, and then reply in private so it looks like it was the truth. You counted on the fact that I'd reply, so you could extend the ban. You know that, and I know that. But it's more important to me to protect my good name than to silently obey your boot on my neck, just so you graciously allow me to return one day. So, do what you have to do. It doesn't change the situation one bit.
It has been almost one month since Zoey's unfounded allegations, and so far, no one proved anything of what she said was true. Yet, I'm the target of threats and suppression because of it. Do you actually wonder why I protest against that? Are you actually surprised I'm complaining about being threatened with "consequences" for nothing?
All I wanted was a fair trial - one month ago. Instead, you chose to protect Zoey. That's fine - it's the loyal way, and I respect that decision. But as much as I respect and understand the way you're going, it doesn't change the fact that the administration is threatening and oppressing me for things I didn't do, and as long as the administration continues this way, I cannot stop defending myself.
Even if I have an attitude problem - it doesn't change that my request for actual proof before I'm being threatened is reasonable, and no ban in the world will change that you just publically denied me a fair trial.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
Renegade, can you imagine if we had "trials" over every little lgpedia spat? And if we did, who would be the ultimate fact-finder and decisionmaker? The admins, of course. So the whole thing would be worthless. You have no right, constitutional or otherwise, to a "fair trial" over a revert debate. If people were really upset over zoey's actions, they would be saying something about it.
After the original spat, I really didn't follow the escalating back and forth over whether it was right, or who was right. As a fairly regular lgpedia user and editor, here is what i saw: A new lg15 portal was being designed, mostly by you. It was looking awesome, kinks were being worked out. You put something near the top of the page (i can't recall where) saying the new portal was going to go live on X date. Conspicuous as you thought that may have been (since it was your project), people didn't really notice it. Then you posted something about how it was going to go live in 21 minutes (or whatever it was), since that was the deadline on this prior notice and no one was clamoring loudly about anything. 21 minutes later it went live. Whoa. Zoey realized (i assume) that the burden of going live at the appointed time vs. clearing up an issue she felt had not been resolved justified a revert. The world didn't end. You felt ticked that people didn't see your notices, and didn't respond in a timely fashion with their concerns. I felt the revert was fine. It was no big deal to revert and have a discussion over it.
This is the way the world works. Perhaps you didn't need to get zoey and/or other admins to sign off on this change formally, but because of the importance of the page being changed, it may have been useful to do so. Regardless of whether there is a rule one way or another. Seeking consensus in such situations, and dampening one's anger when ticked off, is a key to smooth operating of wikis and, generally, large organizations ANYWHERE. That's where you got crosswise with zoey, jon, et al. Jon or Zoey should have banned you a long time ago for the escalation, but they hoped calmness would prevail over time.
The whole brouhaha reminds me of this:

Let's just get the ban over with and go back to the usual fun of the lgpedia.--Milowent 10:50, 19 May 2008 (CDT)

  1. The revert of a community-backed page version, the allegation of disrespect for an entire community, and the administrative threat of "consequences" are not a "little lgpedia spat". Whether the administration even cares for the will of the community is of grave difference for every editor, and I believe you, too, would like to know that there is an actual reason before the administration threatens you with "consequences". If Zoey randomly threatened to ban you today - would you not demand she actually proved you did something wrong? I don't want a fair trial about the revert, I want a fair trial about Zoey's unfounded allegation and her threats, and I want an explanation why everyone can challenge everyone's revert, accept for that one - I want an official, fair determination whether that revert was necessary or not, especially in the form it was done. If Zoey is playing her head admin bonus to push through her personal preferences, we do have a right to know that, and especially because you are a long-standing member of LGPedia, it should be in your interest, too, to know whether you're writing for Zoey, or for the community.
  2. It's very apparent you didn't follow the "original escalation", since you got a whole lot of stuff only half right:
  • It was not designed "mostly by me", I was just the executing arm. Things like turning it from a fixed-width to a variable width layout are not "kinks". In addition, you are trying to paint this as lacking community input - check the comments section on User talk:Renegade/Portal:Lonelygirl15 - it's certainly not a fault of mine that most people just liked it and had no further suggestions. That does not change the fact that they had seen it, and that they approved of it.
  • I did not put something somewhere, I added it to the participate box, where everything that needs broader attention is added, so it's not like it was some obscure page, it was the location where users have been trained to look for that kind of stuff. I then added a notice directly on the portal, so everyone who visited the portal could see how it was being redesigned, and where to comment on the redesign. I then changed the advanced notice again, giving a more definite "Unless there are any last minute objections [... Monday"]. And then, I mention, on the talk page, that it was going live in 21 minutes or something. The latter was never meant as a broad announcement, and I will never claim that. But pretending that advanced notices in the most prominent places on the pedia, weeks before the change, amount to nothing is simply ridiculous. Check the dates. The redesign was on Participate for almost three weeks, and the notice was on the portal for almost two weeks. Do not believe the administration when they claim I tried to force this through quickly.
  • You are still assuming there even was an issue. I'll quote this next part from a post I wrote above:
Renegade said:
The initial discussion did not even run 24 hours, then everybody had moved on to other things already. I posted updates on other stuff, and six days later, on my own accord, without any further suggestion, I added more overlay stuff to appease Zoey. And what happened? Nothing. For another 6 days, nobody cared. Then, Nancy said she liked it, Zoey said she didn't like it, and FH14 suggested a different solution? ...and then? Right! Silence. For another 10 days, until Zoey showed up and inquired if it was being worked on.
Do you see the pattern? The character icons are only an issue when Zoey is around. Every single time, as soon as Zoey left, the discussion died. Simply because nobody else cared.
This is not shit I'm making up. Go there, check the dates. The Character Icons were only an issue when Zoey made them an issue. Until she reverted and made clear she either gets her markers or the redesign doesn't go live, no one else cared for them. And even afterwards, check the new discussion: How many people do you see that agree they're necessary, and how many of them just work along to get the redesign live? And look, for example, at Shiori's very telling post
Shiori said:
You know, Ren, [...] ... I agree with your stance, but like I said, since someone higher than all of us has already dictated something else is necessary, there's not much point to complaining about it. As for Zoey, she's basically relegated the whole redesign's moving forward to Jon and Pheon's opinions. So stop complaining about her and start catering to them. :P
The problem is not that there was an issue and I ignored it. The problem is that there really was no issue for the community at large, and Zoey still reverted, and still forced everyone to work on it. There is an interesting tidbit I like to point out in this situation: Go to the discussion and find the post by User:Krisser. It's the same basic situation - one single user suggesting an optical change, and no one else agreeing or even discussing it. Did you see Krisser reverting the page and threatening "consequences" to me? Is his opinion less valid than anyone else's? The community at large did not reply to Krisser's suggestion, very most likely because no one agreed. I have shown you the discussion path above - whenever Zoey was gone, people stopped discussing the character icons issue. Now ask yourself: What's the difference between Krisser and Zoey? Why is, under the same preconditions, Krisser's suggestion being ignored, while Zoey's ended up in the final redesign?
And hell, I'll go one step further - even if you agree weeks of advanced notice in the most prominent places of the pedia are not enough - Jonpro's "So, if there are no major objections, we will go ahead and make it live in about 24 hours." was buried with no special markup in a reply on the talk page. How is that enough obvious advanced notice?
3.You're also picking up the administration's "no consent" claim. Once more, check the discussion: This is the last revision before I went live. Apart from Zoey trying to enforce her own issue (do not miss her saying "as soon as we can fix this, I am totally on board with making this design live"), where do you see lack of consent? You might want to count the Video List issue, but for that you should be aware that the display differences described depend on the browser, the operating system, the default font, the resolution and several other user-specific settings. It is nothing we can "fix" just like that. And still I did not just brush it away, but I quite openly said that we could change it if it was still a problem later, and even suggested a solution. What's more important, though, is Zoey's line right below that - "We are going forward with this? I do not see any resolution on the character icon issue...?". Think about that for a moment. She reverted my going live with a cry about no consent. She posts right under someone else's issue. What does she complain about? Not the way I ended that thread. Not that I went live without waiting for a response. She laments that her own pet issue was not resolved. Don't believe me? Think she just forgot it? Check the discussion. The Video List issue never ever came up again. Re-read that: The Video List issue never ever came up again. The thread still ends with my reply. The only thing discussed after the revert was Zoey's issue. Not Krisser's background suggestion. Not the Video List length. This leaves only two possible ways of interpretation:
  • "Consent" for Zoey, means "Zoey's consent". The implications for this are clear - the administration doesn't give a fuck for the community, which is something you, personally, as a pedia editor should be concerned about.
  • Zoey counted the Video List issue as resolved by my last statement, and didn't acknowledge Krisser because no one else cared for his suggestion. You already know where this is going - nobody else cared for Zoey's suggestion, either.
I could probably go on with this point, but you know what I'm saying, and I strongly urge you to check the discussion instead of just believing the administration's propaganda. The revert was never about finding community consent. It was purely about implementing Zoey's suggestion before we go live.
As such, any claim that the revert was necessary on grounds of finding community consent, not disrespecting the community and whatnot are void. If that was the administration's concern, why was the only thing the revert addressed Zoey's personal pet issue?
4.I also resent the implication "Jon or Zoey should have banned you a long time ago for the escalation" - as I have shown above, pretty much everything the administration said or did in relation to this revert either directly contracticts the facts, or stands in conflict with their official reasoning. And still, they threatened "consequences" to me. You cannot seriously be of the opinion that defending oneself against unfounded and unproven allegations should be a bannable offense. I have shown the way the administration works above, and I have shown that I did everything right. The only "mistake" I made was treating Zoey like every other member of the community in the discussion. You cannot seriously advocate that should be a bannable offense. Either Zoey had the same rights as everyone in the discussion, then I was right in disregarding her one-person-issue just as she and jon disregarded Krisser's one-person-issue, or Zoey's opinion is more important than ours, than the administration should come forward and admit that. Claiming I was disrespecting the community when I did the exact same thing as Zoey and Jon, without forcefully pushing my opinion through, is simply hypocritical. If what I did was wrong that day, Jon is guilty of the same crime. Do you see him banned?
As for "just getting the ban over with" - that's easy for you to say. I will be branded as having already been banned before, and for what? For protesting that I was subject to threats and unproven allegations? For treating all community members equal? I offered multiple times to subject myself to a discussion about my "attitude problems" if the administration agreed to actually discussing the events of that day. What did I get for my offer? A ban.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 15:17, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
There's nothing to say, except: PAAANCAKES!!!!!!!! --Milowent 22:29, 19 May 2008 (CDT)