| Revision as of 02:50, 22 October 2009 editTenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs)Administrators21,284 edits →I'm genuinely concerned about his mental state: Please use formal dispute resolution from now on. I am no longer comfortable assuming your good faith.← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:40, 22 October 2009 edit undoScs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,800 edits →I'm genuinely concerned about his mental stateNext edit → | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
| :::::If you're going to play the disingenuous 'if it ''is'' Light Current' game, then please don't leave any more messages for me. You're wilfully enabling someone with a years-long history of trolling and harrassment (targeting me, among other editors) on your own talk page. If you have any concerns about my conduct, take them to a formal venue for dispute resolution. I am no longer comfortable assuming that your approaches to me are in good faith, and I do not see continued discussion with you on a one-to-one basis as being anything but a waste of time. ](]) 02:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | :::::If you're going to play the disingenuous 'if it ''is'' Light Current' game, then please don't leave any more messages for me. You're wilfully enabling someone with a years-long history of trolling and harrassment (targeting me, among other editors) on your own talk page. If you have any concerns about my conduct, take them to a formal venue for dispute resolution. I am no longer comfortable assuming that your approaches to me are in good faith, and I do not see continued discussion with you on a one-to-one basis as being anything but a waste of time. ](]) 02:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Your extreme obeisance to the rules ("No one is free to ignore policies and guidelines", "All should observe policies and guidelines. No one is above the law" , etc.) is kind of intriguing, coming from someone who was . (Oh, and we're not shunning, we're ]'ing.) —] (]) 04:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:40, 22 October 2009
 Archives |
|
● Archive 1: 8 May 2006-31 Dec 2006
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
RfC Invitation
Within the past month or so, you appear to have commented on at least one AN/I, RS/N, or BLP/N thread involving the use of the term "Saint Pancake" in the Rachel Corrie article. As of May 24th, 2009, an RfC has been open at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake for over a week. As editors who have previously commented on at least one aspect of the dispute, your further participation is welcome and encouraged. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 19 October 2009
- News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
- In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Notability of news events
Prompted by the Colorado balloon incident and its AfD, renewed efforts are under way to work out a guideline for notability of incidents/events. See Misplaced Pages:Notability (news events). I thought you'd be interested as you wrote Misplaced Pages:News articles. Fences&Windows 21:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination)
Hi! As someone who contributed to Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich and/or the deletion review of that AFD, I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination).
Note: this is going out to all registered editors with talk pages who commented on either page, not just to those on the Delete/Endorse or Keep/Overturn side.
Thank you. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
RD thread
I am offended by this comment, and I disagree that the thread with the deleted question was "incomprehensible". —Steve Summit (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I removed my observation that leaving the responses while removing the question was "nonsense." Edison (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm genuinely concerned about his mental state
He's demonstrating an unhealthy psychological fixation. It's not a personal attack, it's a considered (lay) opinion. He really does need to get help, because his obsession is not good for him or for Misplaced Pages.
His subsequent edits to Steve's talk page illustrate both that he's stalking my contribtions (and has done so for more than a year) and my point that there's something not quite right in his head. Look at the history of childish vandalism to my userpage (and on dozens of other user pages on Misplaced Pages, whenever other editors have rolled back his trolling and vandalism).
Do you honestly think that his actions represent those of an entirely rational person, behaving in a socially-acceptable manner? His behaviour is that of a stalker, and it is not a personal attack to honestly and openly acknowledge that problem.
You're welcome to disagree with my opinion of him, but please don't misuse WP:NPA to issue bogus cautions. If you have something constructive to offer to resolve years of harrassment by this individual, I'm open to suggestions — otherwise, I didn't find your message to be helpful or reasonable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Dont you realise, Ten, that Lc is only paying you back in kind for what you are continually doing to him (ie reverting blocking and banning)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueTurret (talk • contribs) 23:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- We revert, block and ban based on behavior, not from lay diagnoses of someone's mental health. An editor who does not conform to the policies and guidelines cannot continue editing. Granted, if an editor goes over to the dark side and is devoted to trolling, or harrassment, we no longer need to assume good faith, but there is no point to hurling accusations of "not quite right in the head." That is far outside the responsibilities and privileges of admins or other Misplaced Pages editors. Edison (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Congratulations, you're feeding the troll. Well done. I notice that you – Edison – haven't seen fit to caution or warn Light current about the ongoing years of harrassment he's engaged in. Please don't presume to lecture on my talk page if I occasionally observe that an individual who is stalking me and my contributions to this encylopedia has obvious problems. Please, as well, refrain from commenting if you're not aware – or if you're going to pretend that you're unaware – that you're responding to the banned user on your own talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- My comment above cautioned the editor, if it is Light Current, against behavior which is contrary to policies and guidelines. No one is such an exalted editor or admin that he is free to ignore policies and guidelines. WP:NPA applies to all. I will respond, when and if I please, to any post on my user page. Some religious groups practice Shunning, wherein they pretend they cannot hear the speech of those who have been banned for some violation. I am not a member of such a religion. Edison (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you're going to play the disingenuous 'if it is Light Current' game, then please don't leave any more messages for me. You're wilfully enabling someone with a years-long history of trolling and harrassment (targeting me, among other editors) on your own talk page. If you have any concerns about my conduct, take them to a formal venue for dispute resolution. I am no longer comfortable assuming that your approaches to me are in good faith, and I do not see continued discussion with you on a one-to-one basis as being anything but a waste of time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your extreme obeisance to the rules ("No one is free to ignore policies and guidelines", "All should observe policies and guidelines. No one is above the law" , etc.) is kind of intriguing, coming from someone who was just invoking IAR. (Oh, and we're not shunning, we're RBI'ing.) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)