User talk:Filll/Abuse of Civil Hall of Fame

This page was nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

Is it really abuse if no one buys it, if it never gets off the ground? Is impotent complaining really "abuse"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire point is to stop it before it becomes endemic, or create policies that stem it.--Filll (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No disagreement there. The easiest way to stop it is to shine light on it, which you've been doing. Good work. The other side of the coin is refraining from giving people ammo to use. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder

Would it be useful to also keep track of the reaction to these events? I noticed that in the case of the recent addition - someone thinking "one puppy's opinion" was a personal attack - the general and immediate response was to say "no it isn't", together with an explanation that quashed the potential "abuse".

It would be neat to see whether those reactions are changing over time, tending more towards humoring the abuse, or towards discouraging it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

I hoped never to have to cross paths with you again, but please do note that the word "troll" is not generally considered polite. I'd suggest you remove it, unless gratuitous rudeness in a page dedicated to demonstrating how sinned against you are is all part of the Master Plan to Defeat Fringe-POV-pushers. It would be amusing, also to demonstrate how this is uncivil. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually do not think it is. But one has to go around with the zeitgeist.--Filll (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that referring to behavior that you do not personally find to be uncivil as "uncivil" is very destructive to your cause. It amounts to your granting your opponents the right to define the term "civil". Why would you want to do that? Rather than "going around with the zeitgeist", why not express one's will to power by asserting one's own, correct definitions, and using them exclusively? That's a powerful strategy, why eschew it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, that's OK, as long as you know you're wikilawyering and it amuses you. But I'd imagine it would be a good idea to address the use of the word that I questioned. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How is this not an example?

• Claim that "Please retract this personal attack" is a "violation" of WP:AGF and is "unCIVIL". [1] -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)