Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 691:

:::SlimVirgin, no stranger to criticism for her editing patterns, states that I am "harming quite a lot of articles." It should not be difficult for her to give us a list of articles which I have supposedly harmed.

:::As a final note, its usually quite clear that people who use the terminology of [[WP:DISRUPT]] such as "problematic editing" are using such terms as minced oaths in place of the word "troll" (now that "troll" is regarded as pejorative and unacceptable). Still, their arguments are generally baseless, and reduceable to namecalling. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 04:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::::I've had run-ins with Stevertigo elsewhere, leading to a protracted Arbcom case, and this seems to fit an ongoing pattern of disrespect and poor interactions, summed up best in the observation that this is not 2002. Wikipedia is much more consensus-driven now and gives deference to rules, process, collaboration, and civility, not the idiosyncratic efforts of groundbreaking editors to shape the Internet to their vision. If you're going to edit articles on important subjects like "time", "human being", and such, you have to respect that the many hardworking editors who regularly work on these articles have achieved a consensus as to the basic subject of the article, and not take it upon yourself to single-handedly reframe the article to fit your personal beliefs about the nature of things. Whereas deciding what time is may have been appropriate in the early days, today a bold edit is to add news of a labor lawsuit to an article about a local restaurant chain. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 04:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

== Use of Twinkle by Typ932 ==