User:Reswobslc/Tijuana Brass

Advice regarding your entry at WP:PAIN

Regarding the request made by User:Anon 64 at WP:PAIN to look into NPA violations on your behalf... I'm not sure if it's whether you don't understand why your behavior is problematic, or if it's that you just don't care. The interactions between you and some other users on LDS-related articles (which I've watched without much interaction for some time now) have long been disruptive — and to be fair, it's often come from both sides.

At this point, I don't intend to focus on the question of whether you're carrying out "personal attacks", a term which is sometimes thrown around too casually. If you're not aware of the policy by now, I doubt you ever will be. What concerns me more is your willingness to assume an overly-aggressive attitude towards editing here, without much of an interest in reaching a consensus that all editors can agree on. That's not how it works here — and if you're not able to tone down your comments to focus on issues in a fair and balanced way, without making personal accusations, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you. In any case, you can regard this as a warning that continuing on in such a manner that it makes editing difficult for others can result in a block.

I'd strongly suggest taking a glance over the following four guidelines. It'd do you a world of good:

I'm looking forward to seeing future interactions with others here that are more positive and fruitful. I see you as a potentially valuable contributor to help maintain a balance at LDS-related articles — if you can do so in the proper manner. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You might be right that editing here is not for me. When I say "here", I don't mean Wikipedia, but at least Mormon-related topics. Wikipedia already has plenty of futile battles being fought in the talk pages of every religion and every political persuasion. They produce nothing other than cute red exclamation marks on people's talk pages each time they touch someone else's nerves. Fortunately my edits to these kinds of pages are less than 10% of my total edit history, and I'm starting to see them as barely worth their trouble. Perhaps, as select people are continuing to say, that I really can't keep my big fat mouth shut. (At least not here - no one has complained about my mouth in the other 90% of my contributions... fortunately I don't get these sort of complaints IRL either... ever!)

I appreciate your candor and respectfulness in your approach. I also appreciate you treating this as a two-sided issue. I have nothing to argue with, except possibly that I've received more than my fair share of warnings, though this is by no means your fault. Perhaps if I made sure to make a big deal out of every time someone personally attacked me (some blatant examples I never bothered reporting, for example: [1] [2]), perhaps I wouldn't feel as though these little slaps on the wrist I've been getting are unfairly weighted.

I don't really care when someone runs their mouth - I deal with personal attacks simply by refusing to continue the discussions that contained them. The cause of Exmormonism doesn't need me to save it here on Wikipedia, and I'm satisfied with simply going away from it. If that's what is meant by me not seeking consensus - well, I'm guilty as charged. When I sense personal attacks coming my way, I just walk away, as there's no consensus to be had.

At the very worst, I realized that in Exmormonism's talk page, there is an endless discussion regarding whether Exmormonism should exist that has no destination other than repetition. Adding to its novelty, nobody who claims it shouldn't exist is willing to step up to the plate and WP:PROD it to outside scrutiny... but boy do they love arguing the case for its demise. Anon 64 says he gets lonely (tongue-in-cheek of course) when no one responds to his posts that he vigorously defends as not being trolling. The current debate over whether or not Exmormonism exists, translated to the language of a small child, sounds like this: "Yes it should. No it shouldn't. Yes it should. No it shouldn't" ad nauseum. It still sounds like that. If I've been aggressive in anything, it's been in pushing the idea that the debate is pointless, destined for nowhere, that it's being steered by individual(s) who simply wish the debate to enrage as long as possible (whether it's to counteract loneliness or otherwise) and which isn't getting Wikipedia anywhere. Am I potentially irritating those who have an interest in keeping that circular debate going on forever? Very possibly. But will Wikipedia be better off with or without people bickering to no end about their respective POV's which are never going to change? I say Wikipedia will be better off without that incivility than it will be without anything I've had to say. If one must disagree... (raising arms into the air) let's get everyone I've offended and the ropes around my wrists and burn me at the stake on my talk page. Wikipedia will be all the better, right? ;) Reswobslc 22:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)