User talk:Griffitj

January 2016

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:BoxOfChickens. Thank you. CrashUnderride 00:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your civility and encouragement of it in others, I did look for evidence of good faith (Did you?). The page that instructs one to assume good faith also states that there are sometimes reasons not to assume good faith and that it is sometimes perfectly reasonable not to start with the mildest of warning and work one's way up. If you review BoxOfChickens' talk page, you'll see that I gave express reasons for not assuming good faith. I'll list (at least some of) them again here, and perhaps some additional, for the benefit of this discussion. First, the revert to my edit was made extremely quickly, and no explanation of the revert was made in the comment space. Second, in contrast, I did include an explanation of my edit in the comment space. That comment noted that the exact same quote was included a bit further down the page, attributed to another author (and FTR, writing more than a decade later). Third, I was not the first to note this problem. Fourth, when visiting BoxOfChickens' talk page (something entirely new to me, BTW), I noted that several other users have precisely the same or almost precisely the same problem. Fifth, it should be clear from the fourth reason, that BoxOfChickens is not new to the party, and in fact goes to the trouble of listing his/her own process for determining which warning to give to other users. That being the case, BoxOfChickens should have sufficient understanding of the process to know better than to make such a quick, sloppy revert edit, especially without including an explanation. One might object that it might have been an accident and BoxOfChickens did not actually intend to revert the edit. In that case, since, again, there is a pattern of this behavior, this particular act could be construed as a lack of competence. Nonetheless, since prior complaints and/or warnings about such incidents have been posted on BoxOfChickens' talk page, continuing to make edits, fully aware of a tendency to make such errors, then reflects a lack of responsibility in exercising editing duties on Wikipedia. Either way, there is easily sufficient evidence for me to suspend the assumption of good faith. These kinds of edits need to stop.

Though I have contemplated (and still have it on the back burner) organizing a group of scholars and graduate students for a Wikimedia project on the discipline of evaluation (to which my edit related), I rarely contribute content or energy editing content on Wikipedia (I also don't have a lot of $, but I do contribute monetarily.), because I don't have a lot of available time, and I don't want post content that is insufficiently researched or cited, nor make mistakes in editing for similar reasons. Here, my working knowledge of the content and resources was such that I thought I could be helpful without investing too much time, and I have been proved wrong. My edit was reverted without due consideration. I received notice that it was reverted, reviewed it, then felt compelled to review the procedure/etiquette for restoring an edit (even though such etiquette was not demonstrated in the reversion), before actually doing the restoration. In the process, I learned that we are encouraged to contact the party who did the reverting/editing and warn them before resorting to reporting them to Admin. I follow this etiquette and discover I'm not even close to the first to have this problem with the user so, after reviewing etiquette on warning levels and such, I issue the warning. And then I'm warned/reminded to assume good faith. This sort of thing is likely to discourage scholars and others who are careful with their research from investing time contributing to Wikipedia. It has taken way too much time and energy to make a simply correction of what should have been an obvious mistake.Griffitj (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I would rather have used a template for civility regarding your section title on Box's talk page, but this is the closest one that Twinkle gave me. That's the reason I put it here. CrashUnderride 01:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

→Civility? Explain. Does that have anything to do with the comments BoxOfChickens appears to be referencing?Griffitj (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mine was in regards to telling BoxofChickens to "Leave my D.A.R.E. edit alone." CrashUnderride 22:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

→In that case, I don't see how making some kind of comment regarding civility would have applied or been appropriate.

Please do not make personal attacks towards me or any other editors, as you did at my talk page. Do not think that just because you logged out, nobody will now that it is you. It is pretty obvious when you added your new comment to your previous one and mentioned the same article. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 06:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

→I was trying to figure out what you were construing as a personal attack, so I went back to your page. If you're referring to the remarks including "idiot" and "probably autistic," that wasn't me. Ad hominem attacks are not my style; in fact, I teach students not to use them. As far as what's obvious, I can see why you might jump to the conclusion that I posted that comment, the truth is not always obvious, and the obvious is not always true. Issuing the warning was sufficient for me. I don't know if it's possible to see from a user's activity, but if it is, you'll note that I have not logged out since before I made the edit that started all of this nonsense. While it's possible, though unlikely, that I've called someone an idiot in the last several years, I assure you that it was not over an editing error, nor was it equated with being autistic–I find the latter part offensive, not to mention inaccurate. I also seem to remember somewhere in Wikipedia's editing instructions that it is possible to track people who are not signed in using their IP. I suspect if you try that, you'll find that the person is not in the same geographic area as me. It's either someone trolling, or another person whose edits you've reverted on that page. You're discussed on the talk page for the D.A.R.E. page. If you aren't going to delete the offending comment, and if it somehow helps, I'm happy to post to your page again, denouncing the comment.Griffitj (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Yes, that is the attack I am referring to. While I am not able to determine exactly who or where the IP is, I can tell that it is used by a proxy server that all smartphones on the Cricket Wireless network connect to. This means that it could be anyone with a Cricket Wireless smartphone. What is troubling to me about this is that multiple other IPs used by that same proxy server have recently added attacks to my talk page (205.197.242.187, 205.197.242.170, 205.197.242.189, 205.197.242.147, 205.197.242.178, 216.4.56.157) with no provocation, meaning they are most likely the same person. Based on the timing and nature of their edits, they appear to be related to the account User:Eatl33t1111 and their obvious sockpuppets User:Leeteater and User:Eaterofleet, who started to attack me after their page was deleted under WP:G7 (because they blanked it, implying they wanted it deleted).

You also say this:

It's either someone trolling, or another person whose edits you've reverted on that page. You're discussed on the talk page for the D.A.R.E. page.

I have looked at Talk:Drug Abuse Resistance Education and I do not see any mentions of my username or discussion of me, just one comment by you. I have never edited the page before, so I should not get any messages mentioning edits that I reverted on that page from anyone but you.

I am not specifically accusing you of anything here, I am just letting you know how suspicious this seems. If you are responsible for any of the attacks on my talk page, please apologize and do not do it again. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 23:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

→As I said, ad hominem attacks are not my style and I had already issued a higher than 1st level warning, which I felt was strong enough, especially for a Wikipedia editing newbie like myself. Also, you have no way to confirm, but I'm not a Cricket user. I don't know if they're available in my area. I do apologize however, b/c I jumped to the higher level of warning b/c of what appeared to be a history of such behavior on your page (which now appears to all be from this same user) and from the discussion on the D.A.R.E. talk page which, to be fair, didn't name you, but named the same action for the same edit (and when combined with the comments on your talk page, seemed...).Griffitj (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you warn me for disruptive editing? What indicated to you that I have a history of this? BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 18:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]