User talk:Greg L/sandbox

Editors may use this forum to discuss the evidence being collected on the userpage. Greg L (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ErikHaugen, I had generously collapsed your section only to see you further push buttons. Your material is now deleted. The only material allowed on the sandbox will be that which is genuinely intended to achieve the objectives stated at the top of the page. You were merely trying to mount a defense for B2C by arguing the meaning of a linkdiff. However, this is not the place nor is this the time to be debating material as it is being assembled. You will have to be patient and wait for the RFC/U to go to press to argue in his defense. You are still welcome to try again here. If you abuse this offer and behave provocatively, I’ll have to ask you to stay away. Greg L (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to "push buttons", Greg, please try not to get so upset about this. You said there briefly before removing your answer: "we’re endeavoring to advance a coherent motion to the community"—doesn't double-checking whether the diffs really support the point being made help present a coherent motion? As you noted, you're right: I don't think this RFC is appropriate right now. But from where I sit, even worse than an RFC is an RFC where a bunch of random diffs are presented out of context. I'd like to nip that in the bud; hopefully everyone can agree that that is worth doing—please assume good faith on my part. You said "The only evidence that is relevant must support at least one of the above enumerated points."—The link I am talking about does not support any of those points, so shouldn't be on the page, much less as an example of a good diff. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting you: But from where I sit, even worse than an RFC is an RFC where a bunch of random diffs are presented out of context. What “presentation”? How can I make it any clearer that this is not an RFC/U and is instead just a sandbox to work towards an RFC/U. All it comprises so far are collection bins containing randomly placed evidence that 1) needs to be greatly expanded (and will) and then, 2) needs to be (greatly) organized and structured to form a coherent presentation. Now…

You’ve stated that you disagree with having an RFC/U on him. Since this is a sandbox in my userspace dedicated to doing precisely that, your further presence is clearly contrary to the stated objective. I don’t think you want to be disruptive, but continuing to oppose precisely what we are endeavoring to do here, which is solidly within Wikipedia policy, could quickly become disruptive. As I’ve stated elsewhere, please have patience and save your defense of B2C for the RFC/U. Greg L (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can I make it any clearer that this is not an RFC/U and is instead just a sandbox—Nothing; it's crystal clear. What is the problem? I'm not playing games, Greg; I've tried to explain to you what I'm doing. If anything is unclear, please let me know. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

I know the stated goal here is get me banned, but I of course hope that the outcome will be that the community will use this to help me understand better what I'm doing wrong, and to improve. I've already acknowledged that I disagree too often and make bigger deals than I should, and have pledged to improve in these areas.

With that in mind, I acknowledge I have often been accused of tendentious editing, and here it is again. This has always puzzled me, because I've read WP:TE many times, and I just don't see how my behavior meets any of the criteria listed there. So while I acknowledge my behavior overall is problematic, I don't think it's tendentious, at least not in terms of what is meant by tendentious at WP:TE. In fact, I've been accused of tendentiousness in an RFC/U in the past, and that went no where largely due to lack of evidence (you might want to review that, especially the outside views, not the opinions of the involved accusers like Tedder). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, one of the things I've been accused of is not recognizing the problem, and I know that that is often true, so I recognize it might be true with respect to WP:TE as well. If so, what would help me, and also anyone collecting and reviewing this evidence, is to organize it so that a given piece of evidence indicates which specific characteristic of WP:TE has been violated. For example, you might have a section labeled with a WP:TE characteristic, and evidence of behavior matching that characteristic listed underneath it, like this (just examples, not necessarily intended to meet the standards and scrutiny of an actual RFC/U).

(Personal attack removed)

Just a suggestion. You're free to ignore all this, of course. Just suggesting what I think would help. Cheers! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the redacted comment was a personal attack. It was clumsy and unhelpful, but confronting you about your behavior is generally not an attack, Greg. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dang. I thought the irony of that example made it hilarious, but, yeah, certainly not meant as an attack. I thought the effectiveness of arranging the evidence in terms of specific elements of TE would be conveyed in a particularly cogent way like that (that part of it was generally trying to be helpful). But I was also trying to illustrate that it's relatively easy to find supposed evidence of TE about anyone. I mean, if you present a case of TE against someone, and the respondent presents comparable evidence of TE against you, that's probably not going to go very well for you. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]