User talk:PolarianDev

From ArchWiki
Latest comment: 14 October 2023 by Alad in topic Removal of note in AUR helpers

Removal of note in AUR helpers

Don't go around removing notes claiming they are "common sense that pollute the page". When such a note is added to an article, it is done for a good reason. This is your only warning. -- Alad (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firstly this is my talk page, I have the power here, please do not add a thread, and then close it... I have the right to contest edits, please do not remove this right.
I will admit to the fact my edit was wrong, at the time I saw it as someone adding useless note because they were uncooperative with other contributors. I spoke to User:Erus Iluvatar about the edit, and they have explained how it is due to the page having a lot of edits which are unwanted, so the note did have some reason, I had no prior knowledge of this, and I thought it was a simple edit so I never questioned it. So I apologise for removing something which was valid, however you see the "undo" button? Couldn't you have just pressed that? Like with every other edit which is unwanted/invalid?
Instead, you come to my talk page in an aggressive manor, and then threaten what exactly? "This is your only warning", you are going to moderate me for a human mistake? Seriously?
I have dedicated a lot of time to editing the ArchWiki and learning the procedures and how to do things, sure I slipped up with this edit, but you are seriously going to threaten moderation? Please read through Special:Contributions/PolarianDev, that is time I have given without expecting anything in return, and one mistake and you are ready to undo that?
You may hold the power, but you are Human just like me, and you agree to the same code of conduct, so I request you please stop assuming bad faith, and finding every little nitpick to slap me with moderation just because it suits you more. You were not given power to purge people you dislike, it was out of trust. I am aware our history is not great, but there is no reason we can't coincide peacefully.
As for the edit message, I suck at articulating and explaining my edits, you can probably see my awful edit messages across the ArchWiki, they have thankfully improved over the year, but the edit message was not meant to be rude or mean in any way, I was simply trying to explain my viewpoint that it would be "assumed" that you would use the talk page to contest edits, it simply just seemed like a redundant note until the reasoning behind it was explained to me, me calling it "pollution" and "common sense", was bad articulation, it was not meant to be rude, and I wasn't even sure who added the note so there was no bad faith there.
Here is my list of ways this situation could have been improved:
  • You realised I made a bad edit, and misunderstood the meaning of the note, and therefore revert the edit.
  • You come to my talk page and explain how the note is there due to high amounts of abuse to the page, and constant unwanted edits before they have been discussed.
  • I would have replied thanking you for the explanation and apologising for the mistake.
  • The situation would have been solved.
Now this is what happened:
  • You realised I made a bad edit, and you reverted it.
  • You come to my talk page, threatening moderation (by stating "this is your only warning"), and having a very aggressive tone.
  • You close the talk page thread, invalidating my right to respond in my own talk page!!!
  • And now where we are, me replying requesting you not to be so aggressive and assuming bad faith.
  • The situation is not solved, just escalated to where I have had to reply in a defensive manor, and now you have to read this.
See the difference?
As I want no further conflict, I thank you for reverting my bad edit, but I am not going to thank you for the aggressive comment made on my talk page, and threatening me despite the fact I have put so much time into trying to help out. Its seen as a massive kick in the balls if you are wondering!
Take care, PolarianDev (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Giving users strict warnings - especially when they've caused conflict situations in the past - is nothing unusual, nor is it aggressive in the way you'd like to think. Anyone also has "the right" to open and close discussion. Here I closed immediately because I already consider the topic closed. Then you reopen it with the argument of "littering", apparently not realizing that's just as bad as the original edit message in AUR helpers you've acknowledged to be rude!
If this whole thing were an isolated incident, a temporary ban for 2 weeks to clear your head would have been my response. Unfortunately it's not, and - just as importantly - it is clear you are more burdened by, than benefit from your engagement here in the wiki and, going by your interactions in other channels, perhaps the Arch community at large.
After deliberating with the wiki staff, your account has been disabled for 1 year. This matches the duration of your bans on IRC, and was only granted - over an indefinite/permanent ban - because you have shown an innate ability to interact with other contributors in a constructive way.
I hope this period will give you the opportunity to reflect, and direct your energy to more constructive endeavors. A first step would be to realize that when you are moderated, it's not because of some personal dislike for you, but because of a necessary response towards inacceptable behavior.
Best of luck, Alad (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]