User:Cobaltbluetony/Sandbox/Evidence against Struthious Bandersnatch

This page is my attempt to coalesce evidences that indicate Struthious Bandersnatch (talk · contribs) edits with a patterns of incivility and makes personal attacks, detracting from content-related discussions, and slandering the character of editors with whom he/she disagrees.

In article talk pages

Talk:New York Pathological Society

• Diff:
  • Whether or not Erechtheus feels like looking up on his own the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" indicated by the current content of the article has no bearing on whether or not that notability is established, unless the presented facts indicating notability are false.
  • Addressing the user's personal attitude/actions. A civil method would have been to simply quote the policy and his interpretation of it.
• Diff:
  • You, who seems to be so fond of telling other people what they need to go read, are not doing a very good job of reading these policies yourself.
  • Escalation of personal address, detracting from discussion of interpretation of policy.
• Diff:
  • It is especially not a reason for you to take a patronizing attitude towards other authors and tell them that they need to go read policies you do not appear to understand yourself
  • At best, it's "calling a spade a spade", but an uncivil approach to assume the attitude of the other editor.
• Diff:
  • you either do not understand what notability is or you are intentionally misconstruing it.
  • quoting himself, assuming bad faith.
  • Erechtheus, you either lack the ability or the will to understand Wikipedia notability policy at a basic level. You need to stop going around telling people to read that policy and critically annotating other people's articles, at the very least in regards to WP:N and I hope that individuals reading this would be inclined to look carefully at your assertions on any other policy.
  • Another personally insulting address.
• Diff:
  • You simply have a fundamental misunderstanding of this.
  • I think I would be personally insulted by this; again ,commenting on the contributor, not the content. Policies and guidelines are de facto subject to individual interpretation; claiming someone does not understand the policy, especially after the preceding intelligent discussion, is just insulting.
• Diff:
  • I have seen too many good editors driven away from Wikipedia by other users taking on the pompous, pretentious, and patronizing attitude that Erechtheus is exhibiting and by tactics like this, trying to use policy to push his own preferences on others
  • I do not see this attitude here, nor do I see a "push" other than the user sees things differently than Struthious; definitely not a valid reason to call someone pompous, pretentious, patronizing, or any other ad hominem label that begins with "p".
• Diff:
  • trying to use policy to push his own preferences on others. This is a particularly egregious and ridiculous case of it...
  • revision of preceding Diff: egregious is overstretching (in the grand history of Wikipedia disputes); ridiculous is ad hominem.
• Diff:
  • Wow, I just noticed that on your user page it says you have a Juris Doctor. So the misinterpretations of the completely straightforward language in WP:N obviously can't be a lack of ability to understand it.
    

Seriously, did you learn anything at all about honesty or impartiality in school? As a rule I find advanced degrees pretty unimpressive and you are resoundingly confirming that perception. I seriously hope you do not hold a position of any authority IRL, but the way the world works you probably do.

• • Unbelievably insulting. Contributor-directed.
• Diff:
  • I just noticed that on Erechtheus's user page it says he has a Juris Doctor IRL, so don't cut him any slack for misunderstanding things: that ought to mean he understands exactly what's going on here, in very fine detail, and isn't having any trouble at all understanding what the language in WP:N means (he's also announced there that he is a native English speaker) and I should think that also this means the various rhetorical fallacies he's been using have been very consciously employed.
  • I'm getting insulted and I don't even know the guy nor agree 100% with is policy applications at this article.
• Diff:
  • Erechtheus, if you behave in a manner completely unbefitting a doctor of laws you definitely should expect people to question your choice of profession. ... Seriously, you need to stop telling people they need to go read policies. It's ludicrous that after all this demonstration that you don't understand the notability policy yourself you'll still claim you aren't being pretentious in doing that. I suppose at this point you've come to a better understanding of it but covering your mistakes with sophistry in an attempt to save face is exactly the opposite of what a person of integrity would do. ... There's one exception I'll make to this: if you're some kind of Dougie Houser whiz kid and you have a J.D. at the age of 15 or 16 or something this is an understandable learning mistake. Otherwise, you're an adult and you should know better than this.
  • Exactly how high is his horse??? (See, I'm getting more and more insulted!)
• Diff:
  • Talking about sincerity - by now don't you realize that every time I have said to you "you really need to stop, now" I have actually meant it? And you've only dug yourself in deeper when you didn't stop? That's not some kind of rhetorical trick I'm using, it's actual advice.
  • Pot, meet kettle. His insults aren't at the level of "you suck" but are intellectually pretentious.
• Diff:
  • People with the kind of mentality you're displaying - notice I'm not saying "people like you" because you may change no matter how old you are - people like that who end up as corporate managers or judges or other kinds of authority figures, and who then have power over others to wield when their egos get involved, literally ruin other people's lives to feed their egos.
  • [Response censored.]