Thread:User talk:TheDaveRoss/Administrator keeps vandalising my page/reply (2)

So, there are still questions about whether he's abusing and exceeding his academic authority and being really difficult to work with! By which I mean Chuck Entz is still involved in conduct disputes. I know WP:BITE is Wikipedia policy, not Wiktionary policy, but I'm still not sure how his credentials are supposed to outweigh the details of the conduct disputes to which he is a party. He turned a simple discussion about evidence into a "battle", claiming that I was trying to divert attention from it by coming up with some sort of gimmick. Then after I tried to defuse the "battle", he called me a caricature. Someone - SemperBlotto if I remember correctly - erased the dispute from the arbitration forum and marked it as a minor edit. Then I tried to support Pete's and another Wiktionarian's side in conduct disputes he was having with them. He offered his "Congratulations!" to the other Wiktionarian on being accused of many of the same things the other Wiktionarian of accusing people of. Then I wrote an overlong post in favor of the other Wiktionarian, so he said

"Wow! That's an awful lot of verbiage to dump on an unsuspecting third party's talk page- but then, for you, everything always revolves around you, and everyone else doesn't matter. You come up with your own peculiar definition of mercenary and all the dictionaries of the world have to immediately change to conform to it. You don't get your way, so you heap verbal abuse on the person who stopped you. That person stops listening to said abuse, so you drag in third parties, like hostages ("If you don't listen to me, I'll talk them to death"). Whatever my differences with Purplebackpack89, he doesn't deserve this. Get a life!"

There are so many things about this that I have a problem with, I don't even have to keep track of all of them. To this day, I'm still not actually sure what exactly set him off. In my opinion, I may have somehow unwittingly and unintentionally questioned the authenticity or more likely the value of his credentials, accidentally calling him an Essjay or saying his credentials aren't scientific enough. As in, they're not mathematical linguistics or something. Well what may have happened accidentally, now is definitely happening deliberately; if he's this desperate to use a conduct dispute to bury questions about his credentials, then there is probably a problem with his credentials. He's probably not an Essjay, more like the peer reviewers working for Social Text that green-lighted Transgressing the Boundaries in the Sokal Affair. His credentials are probably authentic all right, but he probably got them in linguistics as a soft science or part of the humanities, with all that that implies for his ability to come up with evidence for anything he says. He's also not technically accusing me of violence, but he's bordering on it by his use of the word "hostages".

I hope that post wasn't overlong.