User:Winchester 327/NPA

'''The following is a brief archive of uncivil discussion which I participated in and exacerbated, followed by my own response to these events. Signatures were not made on this page itself, but on the original discussion here.


 * As I was saying: Per unaddressed points below: (a) the proposed policy does not adequately reflect that Legends is equivalent in stature to the defunct S-canon; (b) Wookieepedia has no precedent for segregating S-canon material from the rest of canon, and therefore has no precedent for doing so with S-canon's equivalents; (c) Wookieepedia has no precedent for segregating EU+film canon from film-only canon pre-2014, and segregating Legends continuity from Cinematic "one canon" is therefore a deviation; (d) said deviation must be explained and addressed in the new policy, i.e., why the "two canons" were never segregated in the past; (e) with film-only canon having existed for Wookieepedia's entire duration, and film-only canon having viewed EU+film canon as "not canon" but "used as a resource," the identical nature of this extended relationship to Legends material must be addressed, e.g., EU was always considered "not canon" from the perspective of the film canon, and this is reflected in changes made during The Clone Wars, etc. The proposed policy is therefore a drastic departure from the wiki's SOP, and the reasons for this departure must at the very least be addressed in full; currently, the proposed policy treats this deviation as if it were SOP, which is problematic and misleading.— Winchester 327 Comlink » 19:53, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * And for good measure, the opinion of Mr. Zahn, since mine apparently means squat no matter how clearly I state the evidence: — Winchester 327 Comlink » 19:55, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you've noticed but the EU has been trashed and so has its previous "Canon hierarchy," therefore we intend to reform it ourselves since it's not like anyone else is going to do it and we need some structure for it. LFL itself has stated that there's only one cohesive canon now which makes the series somewhat in the same class as the movies. Also, the entirety of the EU was never considered non-canon by official sources until last week (April 25) and that announcement alone ought to confirm it for you. As for Zahn's post, it's just an opinion and he has no active connections with LFL or regarding what they say about canon. Ultimately, no, your words are being considered but you can't expect yourself, an inactive contributor, to mandate how we, the bulk of the active contributors, do stuff here. The proposal is on the table and it's open for refutal to anyone with a valid vote who shares your opinion or rather just wants oppose to the majority's choice. Thanks. Winterz (talk) 20:13, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * You sound absurdly biased, wounded and opinionated, meanwhile I present facts that are being ignored.  Winchester 327 Comlink » 20:15, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * All right, let's cool it down. Your comments are not being ignored, Winchester, and calling others out doesn't help. To be fair, no one will read them if you verbally attack others.  JangFett  (Talk) 20:18, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously people will have varying opinions &mdash; you've stated yours. The majority seems to approve of Tope's draft though, as evidenced by the vote above. 1358  (Talk)  20:19, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * "To be fair," Winterz wasn't exactly personable and was clearly provoking me. But then, he's an active contributor. Fairly said, Xd. I'll keep myself scarce unless my points are actually addressed, but I think it's obvious they weren't considered since there was no real discussion.  Winchester 327 Comlink » 20:26, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * The warning is for both of you. Don't always make yourself the victim, Winchester. We've gone over this before.  JangFett  (Talk) 20:35, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

First response
I'm not sure if you've noticed Sarcasm. Snide, uncivil, horrible way to start a comment. Borderline personal attack, and a guaranteed way to offend or provoke someone.

but the EU has been trashed and so has its previous "Canon hierarchy," therefore we intend to reform it ourselves since it's not like anyone else is going to do it Heavily biased, unprofessional. My calling you out on this bias does not constitute a personal attack. Nor does stating that your comment is opinionated—but saying you sound wounded by the news (which you do, and I mean that without offense) crossed the line of civility in that context. I'm sorry I called you out on it, but you did provoke me. Furthermore, you contradict yourself in saying "we intend to reform it ourselves because it's not like anyone else is going to" because, if those words are true (that the canon is trashed), then reforming it as fans is not canon. Logical fallacy.

And at this point you have thoroughly derailed—sabotaged—my discussion with your offended-fan rant and fanon.

LFL itself has stated that there's only one cohesive canon now Yes, I am well aware, as you should know if you'd read my statements. I cite this repeatedly.

Also, the entirety of the EU was never considered non-canon by official sources until last week (April 25) Wrong. Very wrong. If you had actually read my comments (are you even reading this now?) you would see that I had stated exactly how the EU was seen as non-canon: there were two canons previously. Film+EU and film-only. Two. Two canons. Film-only treated film+EU as non-canon, as a resource to be used if they wanted, say, to have a name for the Twi'lek homeworld. Sound familiar? Sound exactly like what they announced on April 25? Yes. Good.

As for Zahn's post, it's just an opinion and he has no active connections with LFL or regarding what they say about canon. Correct. I presented this as an opinion, not as a statement of fact. However, this opinion is an interpretation of facts that were presented on April 25. The opinion of a professional, an "active contributor" to the Star Wars license (hehe), and something that holds weight in a discussion. It's completely relevant to present opinions in a discussion, dude. Zahn's interpretation of the facts coincides with mine and is furthermore an interpretation that the voters have been unaware of.

Ultimately, no, your words are being considered but you can't expect yourself, an inactive contributor Now you're just getting nasty. Seriously. NPA.

to mandate how we, the bulk of the active contributors, do stuff here Who says I'm mandating? I'm discussing, and being ignored because of your elitist attitude. What you're saying—effectively—is this is not a free forum, not a democracy, but an oligarchy. You are outright saying that "the bulk of the active contributors" mean more than I do. With the sole exception of the right to vote, this is incorrect. And it shows your true colors, that you never actually cared what I was saying, so good job blowing your cover.

The proposal is on the table and it's open for refutal to anyone with a valid vote who shares your opinion or rather just wants oppose to the majority's choice. Thanks. That is a snide, elitist "thanks." You were uncivil, insulting, disrespectful and deliberately provoked me. Congratulations on your immunity to reprisals.

I have worked damn hard on this wiki. You know nothing about my life or the demands on my time. I have worked damn hard, and despite what your elitist attitude wants to believe, I happen to be extremely knowledgeable about Star Wars and the workings of this wiki. Understatement. Don't attack people and elevate yourself. Don't discount someone's opinion because you mistake them for someone who is ignorant. Now why would you go and assume something like that?

Do you have any idea how exhausting, and discouraging, it is to work so hard to help this wiki, and then to be treated like this when I present something new? '''If Toprawa had posted the exact same words I did, verbatim, you would be all-supportive of it. That is my issue with you. Bias—at the expense of the quality of the wiki. Why the hell should I want to be an active contributor if the types of contributions I make are met with this reception because I wasn't the right person to make them? I have been a contributor for years but I keep hitting illogical, destructively biased walls like you, which is one reason I become inactive.'''

Second response
You sound absurdly biased, wounded and opinionated "Absurdly" definitely pushes this into offensive territory out the gate, whereas something less forceful like, "Well... I don't know, I just think you sound kinda biased the way you phrased that" wouldn't have been offensive. However, after your uncalled-for comment that was full of offense as well as a clear misunderstanding of the points I had made, I didn't think anything less forceful would get through to you. I was correct, but I was an idiot for escalating this. I would have taken a break, but I feared not addressing Winterz' discussion-sabotaging comment before any real contributors passed this by. I only made it worse.

meanwhile I present facts that are being ignored No matter how accurate this statement may be, it still reads like self-pitying crap, and yes, it's no surprise if it turns people off to discussion. I regret writing this before calming down.

That said, I can't imagine anyone expecting me to react positively to Winterz' antagonism.

Third response
All right, let's cool it down. Your comments are not being ignored and. 14 hours pass with 18 more votes in support without any response or discussion. No discussion from already-cast voters. Toprawa and Ralltiir himself doesn't respond to the issues I point out in his proposal. Ignored.

[...] ignored, Winchester, and calling others out doesn't help. To be fair, no one will read them if you verbally attack others. As I said in direct response, and as I have made clear on this page, Winterz provoked this reaction. Your warning should have been for both of us. I would also argue (surprise) that he verbally attacked me and what I said was barely an escalation. Bias on your part, and my chief concern was that admonishing me while ignoring Winterz only further disreputes me and discourages others from contributing to this important discussion. I consider this poor judgment by all three participants in the discussion so far, with instigation by Winterz.

Fourth response
(since Jang beat me to the warning) Obviously people will have varying opinions &mdash; you've stated yours. The majority seems to approve of Tope's draft though, as evidenced by the vote above. I appreciate how you handled this. I think the vote shows that people aren't reading the evidence I presented, since there was no discussion. However, I'm not qualified to make objections, so they have no obligation to give me the time of day. I just expected a higher level of quality and discourse from Wookieepedia's editors.

Fifth response
"To be fair," Winterz wasn't exactly personable and was clearly provoking me. But then, he's an active contributor. Fairly said, Xd. I'll keep myself scarce unless my points are actually addressed, but I think it's obvious they weren't considered since there was no real discussion. 100% nothing wrong with this. I stand by it fully, and it addresses what needed to be addressed.

Sixth response
The warning is for both of you. No, it wasn't. See above. I don't even know why you attempted make this claim.

Don't always make yourself the victim, Winchester. We've gone over this before. Excuse me? What was that? Are you actually calling me out on repeat bad behavior? Are you actually accusing me of playing the victim, when all I've done is straighten facts out? In a public discussion, no less. Haha. Man, if you can't even see how bad it is to write what you just did... you would not survive one day of academic social discussion without being crucified. If I said something half this offensive I would be branded a victim blamer for years. I can't even... man, this was so out of nowhere. Clearly you are annoyed with me and favoring the active contributor. Ugh. At the very least, you should have known better than to slip that little reprisal in at the end—the equivalent of verbally disciplining me in public. Transparent bias, poor administration.