Thread:Amorkuz/@comment-6032121-20190214104010/@comment-6032121-20190215111244

Alright, my answers are this:


 * I am really quite sorry for the misspellings, which are just that, misspellings. I am unfortunately prone to typing too fast and it's a name that somehow doesn't seem to "roll off the keyboard" for me, apparently. I don't know. You'll notice that in the above message (where I now see I did indeed commit the misspelling again twice), the name also appeared in its correct form once, so we are back to the fact that if I were doing this on purpose (and frankly, I never would; in the unlikely event I wanted to make a pun of that nature on Shambala's name, this would be a very inelegant way to do it), then I'd be doing a pretty poor job of my personal-attacking. Though I can but stress again that it was unintentional, I am again sorry.


 * No, there was no "apology", because I still do not consider that I did anything actually wrong. What Shambala's message convinced me of is that the 1st block was in accordance with Tardis's policies, and so for the sake of the Wiki's stability there's no good reason to pardon me in particular. But as I said I'm still very much unconvinced that Tardis's policies on this subject are fair. My acceptance was of a Dura lex sed lex nature, if you will.


 * For the third time, there seems to be a difference in my understanding of Tardis:Personal attacks and the definition you're operating under. The page in question defines it at length, and rather intuitively, as essential attacks that are ad hominem instead of object-level. How disagreeing with someone's ideas (even in a supposedly rude fashion!) translates to that, I still don't grasp. It's not even that I don't see why Tardis might choose to have a policy against shooting down other people's ideas too callously, though I think such a policy would be a dangerous slippery slope. But from what I've seen Tardis:Personal attacks just… isn't it. What am I missing?


 * Again and again I repeat it: the "incompetent bully" comment referred neither to me, nor to Shambala. It referred to a thought-experiment bully, who is neither me nor any other real editor of Tardis. The switch to 3d person was thus perfectly natural, and doesn't conceal the kind of nefarious scheming you are proposing. And even if the sentence was ambiguous in this way, even if we admit Tardis's frankly unfair policy of not giving a hoot about the original intent to instead focus on potential misreadings, again I'd have hoped the entire opening paragraph I dedicated to clarifying in advance that nothing in the rest of the message should be construed as another supposed personal attack because it wasn't one would be of some help. You speak of seeing the other person's perspective, well consider how disheartening it is to take care to write that disclaimer and then still getting a misreading of your later words pegged as a personal attack.


 * How you got a condescending tone from “You no doubt committed the error detailed below with good intentions, and simply got carried away because running a Wiki is hard. (I know, I run one too...)”, I also can't fathom. The point of that clause in parentheses is precisely that being in the same boat as you, I know how hard it can be to keep a Wiki going and keep the trolls down; indeed since my experience is on a much smaller Wiki, I can only imagine how time-consuming it must be on Tardis. From my perspective that something unfair had been done, this was as close to the reverse of a personal attack as you can get: clarifying that anyone (me included) could commit such an error under such circumstances, and that I wasn't actually blaming anyone, just noting that the mistake had been made and asking for it to be righted.


 * Concerning the 'sock-puppeting': yeah, thank you for the warn me, better safe than sorry. Though indeed I don't think I would have resorted to such tactics, and this at least is a policy I agree with. (Much like we should keep a blanket ban on escaping jail, even if I think some people currently jailed may have been wrongly convincted.)


 * “only a longer block could have a chance to effect a change in your behaviour.” Here's, I believe, where you are wrong. All I have learned from this debacle is that Tardis's rules are even more unworkably draconian than I thought, and that someone of good intentions caught in its planet-sized cogs has no sympathy to expect from the admins in such an occurrence. If all that's likely to do anything, it's to make me stop editing the Wiki at all.

Oh, and as a somewhat-off-topic PS, though it also has to do with Tarids policy and its arcana: I might as well ask you since the topic will be hopelessly outdated if and when I return to Tardis properly, and you would be perfectly in your right to have put the details out of your mind my then: what was with that closure of the Body in Question inclusion debate? First, you brought the information that the appearance of a character originating in a DWU story doesn't necessarily mean the story itself is valid. That's true, of course, but it certainly suggests validity. Your example (Vienna) would have been considered valid by default, if not from authorial-intent statements that made it fail Rule 4. But no effort was made for The Body in Question to locate such statements. Could very well be be its authors didn't mean for it to still have any DW connections, but how did you know that for sure?

Furthermore, even assuming you did have such a authorial statement (or other telling evidence) of a Rule 4 infringement, which you didn't produce to save time. Even then. How did that then qualify you to close the thread? I thought the policy with inclusion debates was that someone who'd participated in it shouldn't be the one to close it.