Rule 1: They think this (about you, or something you disagree with? ASK THEM TO SPLAINY PLS THX).
Durova, sorry for being blunt, but please get all the facts straight. You seem a little confused on what this was about. --Irpen 06:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you clarify that statement? DurovaCharge! 07:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
We also need a whistleblowing protection system... DEVS EX MACINA pray 05:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean when you articulate that? DurovaCharge! 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow. He actually ANSWERED HER. I'd answer her with "what do you mean when you say what do you mean when you articulate that?" Rule 2: Make an excuse
Rule 3: Wait! Don't Answer! Make them go look one of your old answers, somewhere complicated!
Irpen, I don't think it's really fair to assign blame on that basis. Remember, my error last month was to assign fault after extensive (but insufficient) research while using a flawed paradigm.
Rule 4: Reverse psychology: Why let the people you attacked get all the sympathy??
such an assessment oversighted as if it were a serious security risk does irreparable harm to the trust and integrity of the community these actions are supposed to protect. DEVS EX MACINA pray 05:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You've read the post I blanked at Irpen's request? And you've read my answers to that question at arbitration? This looks like you're renewing that line of conversation. DurovaCharge! 06:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
O_o Huh? No, I was just using an example, I didn't mean to bring that up. I just think it's necessary, that's all, because fighting these awful issues is bad enough,
Rule 5: Victimology: The ultimate payoff.
In cases of harassment it remains socially acceptable to deny the problem and blame the victim. Those are two specific responses I've encountered repeatedly from Wikipedians who were in a position not only to know better, but to actually solve some of the problem. There have been other related issues also. I would have been much better off if I'd kept my mouth shut. My concentration and my judgement didn't slip until I had serious worries about the competence of some of the people who were ostensibly trying to help me. Trolling is easier to endure than disloyalty. DurovaCharge! 06:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
mean, the ArbCom were hairs away from banning Giano, for Pete's sake. That can't happen anymore. DEVS EX MACINA pray 06:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your criticism. Actually the stress ate into my concentration and critical thinking. When I acted I thought I had been thinking very clearly, and over the next two hours I realized all the mistakes I had made. It's quite embarrassing to become known for one's worst moment and be unable to atone for it. Yet it's important to get an expert legal opinion on copyright when you compose that part of policy, and the danger of reckless revisions might make the proposal unworkable. DurovaCharge! 06:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No wonder she says WR people operate out of the same playbook. She can ONLY function with a playbook, so she assumes everyone else does. This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Tue 11th December 2007, 1:25pm