Revision as of 16:32, 17 August 2012 view sourceStillStanding-247 (talk | contribs)4,601 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:13, 17 August 2012 view source 2over0 (talk | contribs)17,247 edits →Encouragement: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
::After you cleaned off your talk page, I didn't so much as gesture in your direction. I didn't talk about you, or with you or near you. I left you alone and I was happy to do so. You didn't haunt my talk page, you didn't horde URL's to share out with the rest of the world, you didn't chime in against me at every false report. | ::After you cleaned off your talk page, I didn't so much as gesture in your direction. I didn't talk about you, or with you or near you. I left you alone and I was happy to do so. You didn't haunt my talk page, you didn't horde URL's to share out with the rest of the world, you didn't chime in against me at every false report. | ||
::In the end, I don't need to convince ''you'' that I'm serious. Once there's an interaction ban, if I do anything that shows I'm not serious, I get blocked. Simple enough? ] (]) 13:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC) | ::In the end, I don't need to convince ''you'' that I'm serious. Once there's an interaction ban, if I do anything that shows I'm not serious, I get blocked. Simple enough? ] (]) 13:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Encouragement == | |||
I am encouraged that your recent editing focuses more on building consensus than on edit warring. Your comments often walk the line between robust discussion and ] disruption, but the conclusion of the recent ANI directs very useful advice your way. You should be aware, however, that joining in an already extant ] is disruptive to the smooth functioning of the project in the same way that repeatedly insisting on your preferred version of the article is, and is treated the same way. Your recent edit to ] constituted edit warring despite being your only recent edit to the article. - ] <small>(])</small> 17:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:13, 17 August 2012
How to abuse a talk page.
In a recent post, Lionelt outlined a simple plan to get rid of me:
- Guy like that are just the cost of doing business at Misplaced Pages. Once his talkpage fills up with enough warnings and blocks someone will take him to ANI. He'll get a second chance, then a mentor, then another chance, then some kind of voluntary sanctions, then a topic ban, and when he finally realizes he won't be able to push his POV he'll disappear. Going by his edit frequency, this process will take a couple months. Just be patient, always warn him on his talk when he's disruptive, and never never edit war with him. That only engenders sympathy for him.– Lionel 07:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Not coincidentally, when I cleared my talk page, the person he was writing to immediately reverted my wipe. I think it's painfully obvious what's going on here.
I have nothing to hide; I'm proud of my small achievements here and I fully expect that some people will be unhappy with them. However, this talk page is not going to serve as a sewer for these people to fill with bogus notices intended to create the illusion of a pattern of disruptive editing. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Still; Just a note, since this is contrary to WP guidelines, but often ignored. Misplaced Pages:Talk_page#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages specifically prohibits naming other editors in Talk page headings. "using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, ". Not sending this with a WP warning template; will change the heading to NPOV. If you were unaware, and this is the first time you read the policy, feel free to delete this once read. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. I think that just listing his name, as opposed to "Really stupid edit by X" might be acceptable. Still, I'll take your hint and try to make the headings particularly neutral. Thanks again for the information. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
ANI request
If you are lucky enough to get an interaction ban, I will be jealous and would like one, too. But as for ANI, to quote Malleus: "Nothing good ever comes from that place." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- So far, nothing whatsoever has come from that place, good or bad. I have no idea why it even exists, except perhaps as a place to vent and be ignored. You'd think that granting an interaction ban to a pair of people who both want it would be simple administrative request... Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Bluff.
I'm calling your bluff. You claimed you want an interaction ban. Well, I want to give you what you want. If you were telling the truth, make the request and I will back you up. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
He whines when I post to his talk page but makes himself at home on mine |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- In general, I like the idea of WP:STICK and WP:IAD, but I am unsure whether you actually understand the concept.
- You do realize that on Misplaced Pages, an interaction ban means that you can't talk about someone either, right?
- For example, This post, where out of the blue you accused me would be forbidden.
- You do realize that the fact that your BFF Lionelt brought up my name would be no excuse, right?
- And that "not talking about the other user" includes clever things such as "an unnamed user did X" or "I can't say who did it, but Y happened", right?
- And you do realize that the other person violating the ban is not an excuse for you to violate it either, right? (to answer the obvious question, reporting the violation at ANI -- once -- is allowed.)
- If you really want to drop the stick, respond with an honest, non-insulting reply that gives me some sort of assurance that you understand all of the above and are willing to comply fully. Convince me that you are serious, asking the question in good-faith, and that this is a rule that you will follow. Remember, I was peacefully ignoring you until you you made a false accusation against me out of the blue. Please, give me a reason to believe that you won't do it again if I go back to ignoring you. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Out of the blue? Take a quick look at this and notice who dropped your name. Right, it's Lionelt again. Remember him? He's the one who calls himself an evil genius, the one I described as having manipulated an admin to block me by lying about the number of reverts I made.
- After you cleaned off your talk page, I didn't so much as gesture in your direction. I didn't talk about you, or with you or near you. I left you alone and I was happy to do so. You didn't haunt my talk page, you didn't horde URL's to share out with the rest of the world, you didn't chime in against me at every false report.
- In the end, I don't need to convince you that I'm serious. Once there's an interaction ban, if I do anything that shows I'm not serious, I get blocked. Simple enough? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Encouragement
I am encouraged that your recent editing focuses more on building consensus than on edit warring. Your comments often walk the line between robust discussion and tendentious disruption, but the conclusion of the recent ANI directs very useful advice your way. You should be aware, however, that joining in an already extant edit war is disruptive to the smooth functioning of the project in the same way that repeatedly insisting on your preferred version of the article is, and is treated the same way. Your recent edit to Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy constituted edit warring despite being your only recent edit to the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)