User talk:Barney the barney barney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

August 2014[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continual, unabated violations of the no personal attacks policy you agreed to. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   the panda ₯’ 10:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) - before I ask for unblocked, I ask politely that you undo your unjusitifed actions. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

By your own admission, you have been consistently violating two key principles of Wikipedia: WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. A block is intended to be a last resort when someone refuses to follow the rules as they are laid out. The first block is supposed to be final part of the learning curve. Unfortunately, while blocked, and now AFTER your previous block, you continued down the same path of insults and ABF. As such, it's apparent you either a) cannot learn to act within the behavioural norms you agreed to on this private website, or b) you refuse to abide by those same norms. This block is for your continued behaviour outside the expected norms, and is unfortunately quite justified. We cannot allow any editor to continually refer to another as a "liar", "delusional", or any such actions the panda ₯’ 11:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Comment. It would be a significant loss to wikipedia if this situation, BBB remaining indefinitely blocked, were to continue, um, indefinitely. His contributions where he and I intersect have always been constructive, sensible, and ultimately of benefit to the project. What should be done to help reverse this situation? Can I do anything? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Roxy, I typically agree - content edits are not usually the problem; behaviour towards others is. Behaviour is not something a mentor can handle. Indef blocks are not infinite - they are "until the community is convinced the behaviour will not recur". At this point, this block is for continual recurrence of a set of behaviours. How does one move forward if every word typed is basically an insult to someone? the panda ₯’ 11:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree totally to the rules. I have always abided by the reules. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Really Barney?, over a city councilor? A wiki break, even if not voluntary, may be a good thing to help you get your perspective back. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) - this has never been about me. It has always been about Bearcat (talk · contribs) starting a disruptive AFD with lies, then rather than retracting those lies, adding further lies on top of those original lies, and then craftily getting his pet admin DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) to back him up. It is quite clear tat the wfong peron has been infintely blocked here and I resent the dispersions cast against my character. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Bearcat is not the one calling other editors idiots and liars. This is about you and how you are handling this situation- which is turning out to be "in a way that results in you getting blocked and getting your block extended." And it doesnt have to be that way. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) - it's quite clear who started this. It's quite clear who escaleated ths and it wasn't me. Now, I could pretend to be sorry however that would be in effect an admission that Bearcat (talk · contribs) didn't lie and wasn't being disruptive. However, I have principls, and cannot take this action as it is unprincipled. I am not sorry, and cannot retract my statements about Bearcat (talk · contribs) because simply they are true. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
i could tell you that no matter who started it and who escalated it, what happens from here on in depends mostly upon you, but I think you already know that. I hope that you are able to find a way to keep your principles in tact within the Wikipedia framework so that you can return to editing. (And maybe you can add to your principles "I will never call anyone an idiot or liar on Wiki again - i will just have my dog think it at them." )-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you have to say you're sorry or that you apologize. You don't even have to agree that the rules are fair or applied equally. All you really have to do is say you understand how you broke the rules, that you've read the relevant guidelines and will abide them. And mean it. At that point, you bury the hatchet and try to move on and either avoid or play nice with people you don't like. Some days you eat the bear, some days the beat eats you. I doubt you really want to leave here or get forced out. Msnicki (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
And the upshot to all this is that the AfD was closed with no consensus. I like the bold approach by Tripod to advising BBB - it does appear that you are backed into a corner with no exits except biting the bullet. I don't know you well enough to be less circumspect in my comments. I think the onus is on you now to find a way back. Please try. Best. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
And yet again. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines do not offer the leader of a city council an automatic right to keep a Wikipedia article on the basis of a single source which merely namechecks their existence — no matter what role a city councillor holds (plain old councillor, leader of the council, one year in the ceremonial rotation of mayors, head of a council committee, whatever), the only criterion in WP:NPOL that any city councillor can ever satisfy just because of their city council position alone is "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" (i.e. who have passed WP:GNG as individuals in their own right). So if you cannot explicitly demonstrate that the significant press coverage is there — it cannot simply be assumed to exist, but must actually be shown — then they do not get a Wikipedia article regardless of what role they held on the city council. This is not a "lie"; it's a completely correct and accurate and true assessment of what Wikipedia's inclusion rules for politicians say about city councillors.
But you persisted, and still persist now, in ignoring the "Wikipedia's inclusion rules for politicians" part of my comments, and putting words in my mouth which I didn't say. You're claiming that I cast personal aspersions on him as an individual — but I didn't. You're claiming that I'm failing to understand that "a leader is more important than a regular councillor" — but that distinction does not make a difference to Wikipedia's inclusion rules, which whether you like the fact or not do not grant the leader of a city council any greater entitlement to have a Wikipedia article than any other city councillor gets. Any city councillor, leader or not, has to pass GNG to qualify for an article on here. And at no point in the entire discussion did I say even one word about anything beyond the question of Wikipedia's inclusion rules.
You're entirely within your right to believe that our inclusion criteria for city councillors should be different than they are, and to pursue a consensus discussion to try to get them changed to your liking. But you're not entitled to call someone a liar for accurately summarizing what the current consensus is for the inclusion or exclusion of city councillors.
I said all along that the article could be kept if enough sourcing were added to get him past GNG — but instead of adding sourcing, you simply dismissed the incontrovertibly true fact that NPOL does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on city councillors as "lies", and attacked me instead of the real problem (the quality of sourcing). The discussion's now been closed "no consensus", but the reason that happened is because another editor ponied up with some actual sourcing and content improvements. You were the only person to vote keep before that improvement happened, and your rationale was a personal attack on me in which you failed to engage the fact that the article didn't satisfy any of Wikipedia's inclusion rules in its original form. It got kept because the article got improved, not because anybody (least of all me) was "lying" about anything.
And as for this stuff about "my pet admin", I don't know where you're pulling that assumption from either — I don't recall that I've ever interacted with Dangerous Panda before in my entire Wikipedia career, so it's not possible for them to be my "pet" anything. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I seem to recall Bearcat (talk · contribs) that *YOUR* refusal to acknowledge indisputable basic facts was teh root cause of teh disruption YOU initiated at the original AFD. Although I do enjoy watching your squirm in your little hole trying to justify unjustifiable actions, it is gettting slightly tiring now. You are clearly incapable of understanding and my guess is 50% of both of your braincells are malfunctioning. You lied. Then you snuck to the teacher. Admit these facts now and we can deal with this sordid little affair appropriately. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola.svg
You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process, continuing to attack editors, or other disruptive reasons. You may still contest any current block by using the unblock ticket request system, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. the panda ₯’ 20:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully, DangerousPanda, I think this was unhelpful and I hope you will reconsider. You should at least have let another uninvolved admin review the situation before ratcheting the sanctions again. There's starting to be an appearance you could be too WP:INVOLVED, that it may have become personal to you that, gosh darn it, you are going to make Barney behave.
But also, a block shouldn't turn into an announcement that we'll hold him down while anyone who doesn't like him gets to take a free swing. Yes, of course Barney's response is insulting and unhelpful. But frankly, I'm more appalled by Bearcat's behavior here. Why is he here picking at a scab on Barney's own talk page? Why does he get a free pass? He also needs to learn how to drop the stick and slowly back away from the horse. The right outcome here is that these two editors, who obviously don't like each other, can learn either to avoid each other or at least play nice. The right outcome is not that one of them gets to pick fights and the other isn't allowed to respond, not even on his own talk page. Msnicki (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Msnicki: That's the most ridiculous paragraph ever written in the English language. 1) There's no humanly possible way of calling me "involved"; 2) I have no desire to "make" anyone do anything: Barney agreed to the rules, and no personal attacks was one of them, no matter what the situation; 3) I've obviously monitored the discussion, and you cannot honestly be suggesting that Barney is allowed to make snide remarks and insults towards Bearcat, but that Bearcat is not allowed to return to discuss rationally and politely their side of the story? Give your head a shake if that's what you're really saying. If Barney had focused on their own behaviour and how it violated community norms, Bearcat wouldn't have had to come near this page...and Barney likely would have been unblocked by now, wouldn't they? Instead, false accusations and personal attacks were the words of the day ... and thus, protection was necessary. the panda ₯’ 22:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
When your response is about as insulting and disrespectful -- and in the same way, you telling me to give my head a shake versus Barney questioning how many of Bearcat's braincells are working -- then yes, I do think you're no longer uninvolved and that you should step back. I've not said anything at all disrespectful that deserves this response, questioning whether my brain is working. Are admins special that they can get away with this? If Barney can get blocked for a playground insult, why not you? And I'll say again, it's completely transparent that Bearcat is not here to discuss anything rationally and politely. Whatever the original debate was about, that part's over. Bearcat's here only to gloat over Barney's predicament and he's doing what he can to irritate Barney on Barney's own talk page. He needs to walk away. The fact you would defend Bearcat's boorish behavior is, imho, yet more evidence that you are WAY too involved. Msnicki (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Msnicki:Appreciate sticking up for a fellow editor - I have been attempting to do something similar myself, if a little less directly. But read through the thread above this one (Winston S. Churchill) - especially his last post - if you don't think our Barney is skating around the edge of deserving a truly "life-time" ban. I just don't believe that his "disputes" have anything to do with this project at all anymore (if they ever did). As he says himself "nothing will get in the way of his aims". Well, that really sounds very negotiable, doesn't it? If I have any sympathy left for Barney at all - it is as a person with severe problems that I wish I could help - not as a fellow Wikipedia editor (since he has evidently given up on this role himself). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I do not think he should be facing a lifetime ban. I think what we have here is a case where the sanctions have been ratcheted too fast and where Bearcat has been allowed to continue to baiting Barney over a fight that Bearcat has already won. The objective should be good behavior, not a test of wills. Read my suggestion to Barney above at 18:35 to simply agree to the rules and avoid Bearcat. Even I would have had trouble following my advice after Bearcat gave him another big poke the very next day. Msnicki (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I initially thought the sanctions were coming down a bit on the heavy side - but then again, I wish you'd have a closer look at his efforts just lately - and all Bearcat (or I) have done really is dare to disagree with what he has taken to calling his "aims". If I have used a teeny bit too much gentle irony, or if Bearcat has repeated himself a little too persistently, don't you think this pales beside his full blown abuse? Whether he is right or wrong (in either case) is totally beside the point, wiki editors simply CAN'T be allowed to run amuck quite like THAT, or no editor with a skin thinner than that of an rhinoceros would survive, and the version of an article that remained stable would be that "aimed" at by the loudest, most abusive mouth. And he has the nerve to complain about abusive language by others! Taking him seriously (I am starting to wonder if perhaps I should after all) his last reply to me even constituted a (not-so-veiled) threat - although what exactly he is threatening me with I am at a loss to imagine... The ball is in his court anyway - let's leave it there!!!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is DangerousPanda's latest block of Barney the barney barney. Thank you. —Msnicki (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Some free advice, perhaps worth every penny[edit]

I think you should get another chance to clear this up with another admin. But I have no ability to make that happen. Here's what I think you need to know.

  1. They have the goods on you. Our guidelines clearly prohibit personal attacks so when you make one that undeniably fits the definition, they've got you. You're just not allowed to call people names. Yes, there's obviously evidence that WP:NPA is only selectively enforced. And sure, anyone is free to speculate privately about who's more likely to be blocked for transgressions. The point is, ordinary mortals like you and me should never expect to get away with it.
  2. Never give anyone low-hanging fruit they can throw at you. Never make it easy for anyone to cite you for personal attacks by responding to anyone under any circumstances with anything containing any of the obvious codewords like idiot, liar, stupid, brainless, yada, yada.
  3. When you find yourself dealing with a difficult person here on WP, you have basically just 3 choices. You can walk away, you can find a way to get along, or you can go at it but coloring only inside the lines. By "inside the lines", what I mean is that if you pursue a fight, you're going to need the arguments, facts, verbal skills and, most important, the composure to pull it off without violating the guidelines. Your arguments have to be about what someone did or said (represented fairly!), never about what you think that says about the person who did or said it. Here on WP, the #1 reason I will walk away from a fight is that I've notice I'm getting angry. If someone's got my goat, I know I'm going to make a stupid mistake sooner or later. I'm going to give them low-hanging fruit they're going to throw at me.
  4. Yes, there are some real WP:DICKs here on WP and there's nothing you can do about it. There are any number of existence proofs that it's totally possible to be completely annoying but stay inside the lines. Some people really know how to push buttons without ever crossing the line into a personal attack or other mistake. Please try not to be one of those people. But if you find yourself dealing with someone you've decided falls in this category, you should always walk at the first opportunity. You're not going to win. They're probably much better at being a WP:DICK than you are.
  5. Sometimes people you think are WP:DICKs turn out not to be. When you're in the midst of a heated argument with someone, it's pretty easy to conclude, what a contentious blockhead. But I've noticed, not infrequently, that if I walk away and don't happen to encounter them for a few months, that when I see them again and neither of us is angry anymore, it's completely different. It's often worth walking away before you've poisoned the well by saying something you can't take back (certainly not here, where your edit history remains!) if only just so you can have another chance for a fresh start later on.

Here's what I think you should do.

  1. Write the unblock request email they're asking.
  2. Own up to your mistakes. Frankly, the only mistakes I find anyone really remembers are the ones you refuse to admit. This too shall pass. So get done with it and concede they have the goods on you, that you called both Bearcat and DangerousPanda names and posted some other silly insults that crossed the line.
  3. State that you understand what the guidelines require. See if you can paraphrase it to explain what you need to do differently in the future to stay within the guidelines if you find yourself in any new disputes.
  4. You are not required to apologize or say you're sorry or that you didn't mean what you said. You're entitled to your opinions, just not to posting every one of them. Think of this like a speeding ticket. You're not required to apologize for a minor speeding ticket but it does go on your record and you do have to pay the fine. Here, the fine they extract is a promise not to do it again. If you want to give someone a piece of your mind and tell them what you really think, all you're promising is that you'll find a way to do it within the guidelines or not at all. If you decide to apologize, it should be because that's what you think is the right thing to do, not because you feel like anyone forced you.
  5. (If you're willing), state that you intend to avoid any future interaction with either Bearcat or DangerousPanda for, say, 3 months.
  6. Do not offer excuses or blame anyone else. It truly does not matter and will not help your case for you to argue that anyone besides you bears any responsibility whatsoever for your plight. You crossed the line, you made some mistakes and they have the goods on you. But you're not going to make this mistake again no matter what the provocation because here's what you've learned from the experience. Short and sweet – and mean it.
  7. Show a little class when you write this. If anyone might be able to tell you're still angry and not quite ready to move on, it still needs another draft.

If you have additional questions about how to get back in good graces or if you write a proper and earnest unblock request and it's turned down, e.g., because it's not been 6 months as required by WP:STANDARDOFFER and you'd like me to request a public discussion at ANI (okay, like that'll do any good :), feel free to email me. I am not here for offline complaints or discussion of any other editor. I know you're unhappy with both Bearcat and DangerousPanda but I do not want to hear about it. To avoid disclosing your RL identity to me, be sure your account here is set up with a throwaway email account before emailing me.

I hope this is helpful. Realistically, you're just a stranger I felt sorry for, but I do care. Good luck. I hope you make some good choices. Msnicki (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What Msnicki says! Very sensible advice indeed - although several of us have said similar things she sums it all up nicely. The only "aim" we should have here is the improvement of Wikipedia - once we start to get "attached" to specific fragments of the text thereof (sez me, who does it all the time) we are lost. There is a difference between "subtle" sarcasm and plain abuse (again, I need to take my own advice here!) and when you go over the line you have to apologise (viz my little "sorry" to you after hinting you had a "tiny mind") and resolve to be more careful in future. Never hit that "submit" button until after you have re-read what you said and edited it if necessary! Some people are just a good deal more sensitive than others - I notice you are pretty sensitive yourself when someone drops a gentle or not so gentle hint about YOUR behaviour, so you really should understand. You know how it hurts to be judged and shoved into "little boxes" - well, how about not judging others? May sound trite, but it works. I have been insulted by experts for VERY many years and am fairly thick-skinned, and you even stirred me a bit, especially with that last post. Regards, and looking forward to seeing you again in happier, more productive contexts. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Restoring talk page access[edit]

Not sure if you plan to come back or not, but just in case, I'd like to assume that everyone is a little less hot under the collar than they were 2 months ago, and restricting talk page access is unnecessary. Restoring talk page access in case an unblock request is forthcoming. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Barney the barney barney. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.NE Ent 23:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Unblocking[edit]

After a further review of everything that went on back then, an indef block appears excessive. If you've moved on from Wikipedia, then an unblock doesn't hurt anything. If you'd like to come back but pride or anger or a sense of being treated unfairly is preventing you from making an unblock request, there's no sense waiting for one side to cave in. I've unblocked this account.

I do think some of your comments, Barney, were excessive and over the top. I hope, with time, that you'd now agree with that, at least. But I'm just not convinced an indef block is the solution. I recognize the apparent baiting, and the suboptimal way the block was handled, but those are mitigating factors to the block extension, not excuses for the actual over-the-top aggression. Personally, I believe most of your comments about Bearcat were untrue, and/or unfair; however, even if they were true, we don't go around saying stuff like that out loud all the time. If we did that in real life, everyone would end up with bloody noses every day.

I guess what I'm saying is that while I don't think the indef block was a great solution to the problem, I do think there was a problem, and you should be aware (even if you don't agree) that you'll need to dial it back a few notches if/when you return, or this whole episode is likely to repeat. Either way, good luck with whatever you decide. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Wikipedia logo new year sk.png Happy New Year !!!
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS