| Revision as of 17:50, 1 June 2009 view sourceRoux (talk | contribs)23,636 edits →It's his own talk page: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:14, 1 June 2009 view source Enkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 edits seeking help in presenting thoughts clearlyNext edit → | ||
| Line 266: | Line 266: | ||
| Roux: you claim that my bias is "obvious"; I want to know what you imagine it is. (Others have placed me on ''both'' sides of this dispute, so I wonder which fallacy you've chosen.) If you think that people will be more apt to believe a message left by an indef-blocked user than they will be to believe that he's blocked for a good reason, then I disagree with your assessment of human nature. Who will even look at that page, and then become convinced that... what? All admins are scum? What are they going to do, get so mad they burn down Misplaced Pages? You have not answered the question about ''actual'' concrete harm being done; you've simply asserted without justification or explanation that I'm biased, and that his message will somehow be mistaken as gospel by some indeterminate "public"(?). -]<sup>(])</sup> 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC) | Roux: you claim that my bias is "obvious"; I want to know what you imagine it is. (Others have placed me on ''both'' sides of this dispute, so I wonder which fallacy you've chosen.) If you think that people will be more apt to believe a message left by an indef-blocked user than they will be to believe that he's blocked for a good reason, then I disagree with your assessment of human nature. Who will even look at that page, and then become convinced that... what? All admins are scum? What are they going to do, get so mad they burn down Misplaced Pages? You have not answered the question about ''actual'' concrete harm being done; you've simply asserted without justification or explanation that I'm biased, and that his message will somehow be mistaken as gospel by some indeterminate "public"(?). -]<sup>(])</sup> 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Given how strongly you have lobbied him to get unblocked, yes, your bias is obvious. Mine is too; I think he should have been blocked long ago as an obvious disruption to the project who was solely here to make a point about something--aka an OBVIOUS SOCK IS OBVIOUS--and obfuscated that with some piddly Huggling action. That being said, I never participated particularly fervently in the various discussions, as he was just yet another elephant in the room that Misplaced Pages refuses to deal with. He is now, however, banned by the will of the community, and our usual response in that situation is to deny users the ability to keep firing shots from their talk page. Again: what he is saying on his talkpage is provably ''dishonest''. So we are allowing this because why? We are allowing him to deliberately game policies about removing declined unblocks because...? Is there an actual good reason for that? Of course there is not. The harm, as I have mentioned already, is the harm of allowing a banned editor to continue taking potshots, thus enabling the ''next'' banned editor to do so, and the next, and the next. I don't know about you, but I am sick to death of these elephants taking up so much space on the rug we sweep everything under. He is banned, he is gone, if he wants to appeal he can ] and be done with it. He does ''not'' get to continue using his talkpage to post lies about why he was permanently disinvited. Well, I say permanently.. I think we all know that there's another sock. At least. //] ] 17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)</small> | :Given how strongly you have lobbied him to get unblocked, yes, your bias is obvious. Mine is too; I think he should have been blocked long ago as an obvious disruption to the project who was solely here to make a point about something--aka an OBVIOUS SOCK IS OBVIOUS--and obfuscated that with some piddly Huggling action. That being said, I never participated particularly fervently in the various discussions, as he was just yet another elephant in the room that Misplaced Pages refuses to deal with. He is now, however, banned by the will of the community, and our usual response in that situation is to deny users the ability to keep firing shots from their talk page. Again: what he is saying on his talkpage is provably ''dishonest''. So we are allowing this because why? We are allowing him to deliberately game policies about removing declined unblocks because...? Is there an actual good reason for that? Of course there is not. The harm, as I have mentioned already, is the harm of allowing a banned editor to continue taking potshots, thus enabling the ''next'' banned editor to do so, and the next, and the next. I don't know about you, but I am sick to death of these elephants taking up so much space on the rug we sweep everything under. He is banned, he is gone, if he wants to appeal he can ] and be done with it. He does ''not'' get to continue using his talkpage to post lies about why he was permanently disinvited. Well, I say permanently.. I think we all know that there's another sock. At least. //] ] 17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)</small> | ||
| ==Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly== | |||
| I write to ask for prospective help. In a sense, I'm only interested laying the foundation for the I-don't-know-what in the future. Perhaps this may be construed as taking steps to avert problems might be mitigated by a timely comment or suggestion ...? | |||
| ===ArbCom remedy=== | |||
| Voting is underway at . In part because of , the was modified and "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved." You will be surprised to learn that ] has anything at all to do with this so-called "evidence" at and at . I don't think this timeless prose is worth struggling to read, but I mention the links to explain a bit more of the reasons why I'm reaching out to you. | |||
| ArbCom findings of fact included: | |||
| * . "... many of Tenmei's talkpage posts and submissions during this arbitration case have been very difficult for other editors to understand, to the point that experienced participants in dispute resolution have had difficulty in following them, despite what we accept as Tenmei's good-faith best efforts to assist us in resolving the case." | |||
| ArbCom remedies included: | |||
| * : "Should Tenmei become involved in any further disputes with other editors, whether concerning the content of articles (beyond ordinary day-to-day editing issues) or more formal dispute resolution procedures, he shall seek the assistance of a volunteer mentor or adviser to work with him in maximizing the value of his presentation by assisting him with formulating it in a clear and civil fashion." | |||
| * : "Editors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help from others in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought." | |||
| It is clear that ArbCom anticipates future difficulties; and I guess I need to do the same. Arguably, my previous postings on your talk page are congruent with exactly the sort of thing ArbCom wants me to do in future; however, I note with regret that at ] is cited several times by ] as evidence of harassment? | |||
| If you want to discuss this off-wiki, feel free to contact me at tenmei1781@gmail.com. -- ] (]) 17:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:14, 1 June 2009
roux
| main | • | talk | • | dashboard | • | sandbox | • | edits | • | • | refresh |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WikiCup Newsletter XVIII
Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 14:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here. Good ideaI like this. But this will not pass, CIV has for ages been the underdog. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
my applicationThank you for your comment. But this time I accept 2 Admins dismissal. Because they gave me chance last time. But they think premature. Sorry. Most of our misfortune comes from encountered the machine gun. You seem to know I am not racist. I am consoled. Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC) My rationale.You said on MFD that you had trouble understanding why I didn't want to attempt to engage the user with a very promotional userpage, well, here's the main rationale: Gigs (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It's his own talk pageI think it's best we leave him alone about it. -GTBacchus 16:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Roux: you claim that my bias is "obvious"; I want to know what you imagine it is. (Others have placed me on both sides of this dispute, so I wonder which fallacy you've chosen.) If you think that people will be more apt to believe a message left by an indef-blocked user than they will be to believe that he's blocked for a good reason, then I disagree with your assessment of human nature. Who will even look at that page, and then become convinced that... what? All admins are scum? What are they going to do, get so mad they burn down Misplaced Pages? You have not answered the question about actual concrete harm being done; you've simply asserted without justification or explanation that I'm biased, and that his message will somehow be mistaken as gospel by some indeterminate "public"(?). -GTBacchus 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearlyI write to ask for prospective help. In a sense, I'm only interested laying the foundation for the I-don't-know-what in the future. Perhaps this may be construed as taking steps to avert problems might be mitigated by a timely comment or suggestion ...? ArbCom remedyVoting is underway at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision. In part because of "Evidence presented by Caspian blue", the locus of dispute was modified and "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved." You will be surprised to learn that Roux has anything at all to do with this so-called "evidence" at "Tenmei's wikihounding and trolling" and at "Tenmei's ad hominem attacks and disruption during the ArbCom case". I don't think this timeless prose is worth struggling to read, but I mention the links to explain a bit more of the reasons why I'm reaching out to you. ArbCom findings of fact included:
ArbCom remedies included:
It is clear that ArbCom anticipates future difficulties; and I guess I need to do the same. Arguably, my previous postings on your talk page are congruent with exactly the sort of thing ArbCom wants me to do in future; however, I note with regret that "How to disagree without being disagreeable" at User talk:Georgewilliamherbert is cited several times by Caspian blue as evidence of harassment? If you want to discuss this off-wiki, feel free to contact me at tenmei1781@gmail.com. -- Tenmei (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
