Content deleted Content added
m →Blocked |
m →Blocked |
||
Line 290:
It is not possible to demonstrate at any point that my edits were "motivated by a program of malice" (the key indication of trolling). The only malice and incivility on display (malice and incivility that reached astonishing levels) was from other editors. And none of it can reasonably be said to have been deliberately provoked by me. Do you think I enjoy being in the company of people who can make (or excuse) posts like '''"fuck off and die you disgusting little heap of shit. Sociopathic scum like you shouldn't be let within a mile of Wikipedia."''' In what way did a post made to object to the inclusion in the lead the unatributed pov word terrorist "provoke" that? In what way could any post "provoke" that?
'''Thirdly,''' De728631 appears to give massive importance to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meowy&diff=508302535&oldid=508300689] In doing so he has forgotten the general advice that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Incivility#Incivility] "an editor's talk page is more like their kitchen; it's more informal, and (within reason) it's up to them what happens in there". He has also completely ignored the context of the post and does not seem to have understood it was meant to be read ironically. That post was written in a few minutes and was '''given as a humourous reply''' to an editor who tried to justify his edits by, essentially, saying ''"Jimmy Wales would have approved of them".'' Well, Jimmy Wales can go screw a kangaroo for all I care (we've all seen the 4-chan "photo" of him doing it). If I had said something crude like that, maybe De728631 would have understood that '''the post was not meant to be serious'''. John Carter below describes the post's content as "arrogance, self-righteousness, disregard for objectivity, and (I feel justified in saying) delusion" YES, OF COURSE IT IS - IT WAS INTENDED TO BE EXACTLY LIKE THAT! It was written as a joke reply to someone who considered that they were so familiar with the opinions of Jimmy Wales that they could state, quite confidently, that "he is with him". The post did not even contain the words "I don't even want to contribute in a constructive way to Wikipedia" used by De728631
I first came to this page because I had marked it several years ago and saw it on my watchlist. Honestly, Meowy, the statement linked to demonstrates not only contempt for a group of people with which you have chosen of your own free will to involve yourself, but a degree of arrogance, self-righteousness, disregard for objectivity, and (I feel justified in saying) delusion that there is very little chance that I can imagine, even if you do request an unblock, that it is likely anyone will do so without significant limitations on your ability to edit. I would not myself necessarily object to you making such a request, however, or necessarily inhibit it being acted upon.
| |||