User talk:Arudoudebito

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Attempted outing, repeated accusations of COI in that essay, and repeated accusations of bias[edit]

Hi Arudoudebito, for the record, I have no antipathy or ill-will towards you at all. Please don't lump me into some vague group. I don't know how you got this into your head, but all I've done is follow policy to the best of my ability by focusing on reliable sources and going through the usual discussion channels. The intention is to write a good article. Do editors sometimes disagree? Yes, of course they do. Is there a learning process for everyone? Yes, there's that too. That's normal across Wikipedia for everyone and that's why there's consensus. I respect it. What I don't like is constantly being accused of things that are just patently false in a clear effort to intimidate me,[1] stop me from enjoying the Wikipedia experience, or constructively contributing to Wikipedia. You were asked more than once to not accuse me of Conflict of Interest based on your speculation about whoever you think I might be. You're aware of it, but you linked to the essay again anyway in which it engages in attempted outing speculation, and accuses me of several other things.[2] I addressed some of the accusations once,[3], and the COI accusation later when it was becoming obvious that you didn't want to stop,[4] and then I stayed quiet on the subject thinking we could all just focus on the content of articles. That hasn't happened. Almost every time I contribute to the discussion in order to improve the article, you follow with the same accusations over many months. It's no longer an isolated incident of uncivil behavior. It's a repeated pattern now. I'm equally disappointed per WP:REHASH, WP:IDHT. I really don't want to go to the Admin Board about this issue per WP:BLPKIND, but if it happens again I'm not sure what alternative I'm left with. I guess what I'm respectfully saying is: Please stop it. Best wishes, Oddexit (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Oddexit: mere linking to a BLP noticeboard archive is not a violation of any policy. Stop pretending it is. There may be a good argument for removing the portions of that archive that are not compliant with our policy on speculating about editors' real-world identities. @Mr. Stradivarius: please feel free to jump in if I am giving poor advice here. I can use the adminhelp template if you would prefer to disengage from this issue. VQuakr (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr, I don't see how this has anything to do with you. Please mind your own business. Oddexit (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Public forum. Quit demonstrating ignorance of our policies if you wish to no longer have other editors correct your ignorance of our policies. VQuakr (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oddexit. Thank you for your message. However, for reasons I have stated before, I do not want you involved in any way with editing the Debito Arudou BLP. This is further confirmed by your reasoning above (claiming victimhood for citing your edit record), particularly that I am stopping you "from enjoying the Wikipedia experience, or constructively contributing to Wikipedia". There are currently 4,751,000+ other articles you can constructively edit, so please do so, for your fixation on this BLP seems to be an unhealthy one. And I am unconcerned about your "enjoyment" of the Wikipedia experience, because, as I have said repeatedly, your biased edits are hurting my life. I believe that your inability, as an anonymous internet moniker, to see me as someone with a real life or empathize with me as a real person, is a symptom of a larger problem. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 15:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debito, you cannot decide who does or who does not edit your BLP. Provided that wikipedia policies are not violated, Oddexit (or for that matter any other editor) is free to edit any article that they please. I would suggest to you, however - that making insulting statements that you are not qualified to make, such as "a symptom of a larger problem" - are not civil or constructive. ChemicalG (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Oddexit is no longer free to edit pages related to Debito, because I topic-banned them yesterday. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - but I think you're missing the point... Debito cannot dictate who can/cannot edit his BLP, also the same rules (civility, etc.) apply to Debito as well. ChemicalG (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-archival[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How do I archive discussions that are many years old? Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 23:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of parameters. The bot sweeps talk pages about once per day, so the archival will not be instantaneous. VQuakr (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. But two days in and nothing has been archived yet. Something I've done wrong? Thanks. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 03:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The archive settings template was set to archive this page to subpages of Talk:Debito Arudou, rather than subpages of "User talk:Arudoudebito". To reduce the possibility of mistakes, the bot won't archive pages to subpages of other pages without a special token. I've fixed the template to point to "User talk:Arudoudebito/Archive n", so the bot should archive this page on its next run. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]