User talk:Dustinscottc

Just got back online. Well done. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

This is funny because I was actually tempted to post “good game” on your talk page but decided otherwise because with the roles reversed, it would be off-putting (maybe just mentioning that is bad enough, but I hope you know what I mean).

I do want to thank you for having put a lot of thought into your argument and keeping everything focused on how the policies and guidelines apply to the situation, and not personal observations or hunches. Although I obviously disagreed, I thought it was a strong argument. Dustinscottc (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the civil debate and hope we can turn our attention to further improving that article and others. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi User:WhatamIdoing, if you’d like to have an extended discussion where you can continue to engage in personal attacks on me, this is the place to do it. Let’s leave it off of the Village Pump. If you want to actually talk about the policy idea I’m floating, and not make it about me, then I invite you to put that there. Personal attacks on me: here. Substantive discussion of a policy idea: there. Got it? Dustinscottc (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that anything I've said constitutes a personal attack.

The substantive discussion of your policy idea is precisely what I'm discussing there: You want to ban people from doing basically what you did (namely, posting on other people's User_talk: pages when they have a concern – valid or otherwise – about that editor's behavior). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

No, you’re not discussing my policy idea. You’re distorting the idea past recognition, and claiming that I’m proposing things that I’m not proposing. In the process, you are trying to work in every little thing that you think I’ve done wrong. The result is a discussion that is much more about my history as an editor than it is about the policy proposal. You can make your arguments about the policy without making it about me. One or two references to drive the point home is fine. Drudging up example after example from my edit history is not.

I’m sure you disagree that your behavior constitutes a personal attack. But look back at everything you wrote, and compare how much is about me specifically. You are not attacking the idea. You are attacking me. Personally. That is the very definition of a personal attack.

Now, I’m frankly not too interested in you continuing to dive into the archives for ammunition for you to hurl hypocrisy accusations at me, but if you have to get it out of your system, I prefer you do it here, please. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Are we agreed on the basic facts?

• When you were an inexperienced editor, you complained on someone else's User_talk:page.
• When an equally inexperienced editor complained on your User_talk: page, you didn't like it.
• So now you propose that some inexperienced editors be prohibited from complaining on User_talk: pages.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

No, we are not agreed on the facts.

• When I was an inexperienced editor, I asked an editor to stop a specific behavior on a specific page.
• When an experienced editor with a TA that was two days old made a vague and unsupported allegation on my user talk page, I didn’t like it.
• Now I propose that editors using temporary accounts, regardless of experience, be prohibited from engaging in discussions that frequently benefit from the context of actually being able to see their edit history.

What do I mean by benefiting from context? Well, just look to Wikipedia:NPA, which recommends different approaches to first offenses/isolated incidents and recurring attacks. If you don’t know an editor’s past behavior because their account name changes every 90 days or whenever they use a different device or delete cookies, then you don’t know which you’re dealing with. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I contest that the allegation is "vague and unsupported". I explained extensively the grounds for me placing the warning box here, yet you chose to ignore that, and instead of replying to my points calmly, went straight ahead with a WP:UNCIVIL comment. At no point in any discussion later did you acknowledge my explanation, on the contrary, you continued to act like my use of the warning was some sort of attempt at retribution.

You have been reminded multiple times that the current WP:CONSENSUS is not that unregistered users should be barred from editing user talk pages, e.g. . It is of course fine to discuss it again since WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, but what is not is claiming that a user made several WP:PAs and indiscriminately collapsing the majority of the content because you don't agree with their points .

Your claim that the user is merely "distorting your [policy] idea" when the only thing they pointed out was a ridiculous double standard that is actually a personal attack towards them in itself, one of the numerous you have been making in the past few days. I wouldn't say they are "attacking [you p]ersonally". What they are doing is making a point.

P.S.: I am not really that experienced, but keep flattering me if you wish to do so. ~2026-12020-63 (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

How did you know at the time that you were talking to "an experienced editor with a TA that was two days old"? Also, what's your working definition of "experienced" in this context? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Because their only edits were administrative in nature. Brand new editors don't request discussion closures, confidently cite WP policies, or use templates on user talk pages. "Experienced", in my view, means having been involved long enough to know your way around administrative procedures and practices. Dustinscottc (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Funnily enough, most of my experience regarding administrative procedures, practices, and policies mostly come from lurking (on talk pages etc.) and studying the WP:MOS and others. (TA changed, still the original user) ~2026-13277-33 (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)