- The problem with your complaint is that I offered my argument, without requesting a response. It was Otto who feels the chronic need to respond, picking apart each and every comment. I'm more than happy to leave my comment alone, but if Otto feels the need to provide his inane excuses for deletion, I will reply. Where were all the admins who are so concerned with disruption when Otto was on his string of obscenity-filled tirades?
Alansohn (
talk)
03:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
- There's nothing wrong in the abstract with responding to another's comments. Anyone is free to respond to anyone else's argument, whether or not it's asked for. What is inappropriate is mischaracterizing another user's arguments and claiming that they are making arguments that they clearly are not, and doing it repeatedly. I don't see Otto doing that here, but I do see you doing that here, and elsewhere in discussions I have frequently visited. If you are doing it on purpose, you're clearly being disruptive. Maybe you just misunderstand his reasoning, which I admit is possible, but if this is the case, you need to be told—you're completely misinterpreting his rationale and reasons for deletion. Here, Otto has fairly clearly set out his rationale for deletion in the nomination, so when he makes a subsequent comment about deleting future ones he also finds "unnecessary", I think we can read it in the context of his earlier statements and not accuse him of making an "IHATEIT"-type argument. Incidentally, I'm unaware of any "string of obscenity-filled tirades"; obviously I must not have been involved in that particular discussion. Perhaps you should have raised it with an admin or anyone else when it was occurring, where I'm sure it could have easily been dealt with.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
07:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Take a look at
this diff, where Otto goes ballistic, "I've pointed out time after time after time after time notability is not the standard for categorization. If you want to argue this bullshit ephemera and engage in your typical distortions, feel free to continue coming off like an ass" (emphasis in original). It is interesting that you "must not have been involved in that particular discussion". If you take a look at
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_29#People_buried_in_Abney_Park_Cemetery, you might know the admin who closed it. Maybe now, after the fact, it might be appropriate for you to start addressing Otto's chronic incivility.
Alansohn (
talk)
18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Hm—it obviously didn't make much of an impact on me because I honestly don't remember reading that prior to closing the discussion. I hope you realise I wasn't trying to deceive you about the matter and my above comments were made sincerely. Perhaps at the time I just filtered out the comments as the standard Otto vs Alansohn bickering. I apologise for my ignorance on the matter, but if it makes you feel any better, I think Otto was wrong to word those particular comments in the way he did. But if you want to use this to justify continuation of the feud that is painful for everyone except apparently you two, be my guest. I'm done with trying to help people avoid escalating their behavior to the point of disruption, since
all I get is grief over it when all I'm doing is trying to help. I thought a typical user would prefer that over getting blocked for disruption by another admin one day, but perhaps not.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I have told you repeatedly that you made a number of valid points. I have told you that I will make changes to avoid conflict with Otto while still retaining my active participation at CfD. But despite these commitments, you have repeatedly chosen to misinterpret my statements as somehow saying that I have chosen to ignore your words. I have agreed with you when you were right and I have called you to task when you were wrong. You have insisted that Otto is part of the problem -- "it takes 'two to tango', so to speak, and Otto is one of the more abrasive editors I have come across, and he is far from blameless" -- but taken no public action to deal with the festering Otto problem you acknowledge. If I pulled a fraction of the crap that Otto has regularly gotten away with on a daily basis there would have been admins swarming around the problem. I look forward to seeing some progress regarding the Otto problem. There's no need to respond, at least not here. Your actions will speak louder than words. (P.S. I checked your contribution list again before clicking the Enter button).
Alansohn (
talk)
21:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Glad to see you're still worried about Otto and what I'm going to do with him. Tit-for-tat is probably the worst way possible to deal with this, but continue as you are, and continue checking up on me to see if I tell Otto he's being disruptive. As I said, I'm through with worrying about your fate. Maybe my attempts to help you had something to do with the fact that I received over half a dozen emails from different users complaining specifically about your behavior, and not about Otto's. (My interpretation that Otto contributed to the problem was my own analysis, not those of the users I was trying to help.) In other words, I was responding to a fairly overwhelming accumulation of requests to do something about a specific user. But no, as an admin one has to be perfect, despite the limitations of time and humanity, or it's not good enough.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
21:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
reply
|