Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:41, 20 November 2012

Response to Andromedan

I would like to add there is an awful lot more to the situation described above by Andromedean. The topic and dispute referred to by Andromedean was closed after Andromedean had failed to gain any consensus for proposed changes they wanted to make. A user who was not HiLo48 shut down the discussion as it was not producing anything productive and it was clear there was no consensus for the suggested changes proposed by Andromedean. Andromedean then unilaterally re-opened the discussion. This was despite Andromedean being fully aware that it would be an inflammatory action. It was only after a very exhausting discussion, with inflammatory actions and a very entrenched attitude of trying to impose and force changes through by Andromedean, that HiLo48 posted their comments referred to by Andromedean. I am not defending HiLo48 or placing any positive or negative opinion. I am simply giving the context behind the comments posted by Andromedean. Sport and politics (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have little doubt HiLo48 has negative value to the Misplaced Pages project and will continue to dispute and attempt to remove articles he doesn't like. I wish there was a "Disendorse" list so I could heartily object to this. HiLo48, by recognising that incivility is disruptive and vowing to cease profanity, has taken the first steps on the road to redemption and I applaud his acceptance. The fact that he has used very mild "rude words" - "Piss off" was the only example I could find - since his vow is extremely encouraging and says a lot to his fortitude. We are here to help him, not hate him. I hope that he continues to work towards fitting in with community standards of behaviour, and I have every optimistic hope for this. --Pete (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

By not putting a name under the endorse, it's basically an unendorsed view. Blackmane (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There should in my opinion be an ability to show outright opposition to a view expressed. As opposed to only being able to show active endorsement for a proposal. Sport and politics (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As I say, my main problem is his attempt to sway opinion by force of numbers rather than attempting to provide any reason (valid or not). This behaviour is far more disruptive than mere incivility. However there is plenty of the latter if that what you are offended by. Are you endorsing this Pete, or have you just not looked through the links I provided?

Trivial and unwarranted criticisms of editors.I don't believe this. Not just the claims about WADA, but the seeming incompetence of editors here, combined with an unbelievable arrogance. Of course we use fucking citations, but that's not what they should look like. HiLo48 (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What? That is no response to my question and point at all. A Section and an Article are quite different things. Are the people I'm communicating with here truly competent editors? HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Insulting editors and implying they are biased even when they are using articles which criticise their own country! "Why should I calm down? It's being driven by a very small number of mostly far too inexperienced, narrow focus editors. Why? Because they want to keep whinging and whining after their country got beaten in some event at the Olympic Games. This is Misplaced Pages at its worst." HiLo48 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks as if he already started to hound and accuse me of 'shopping' today, when I am merely attempting to suggest practical ways how editors can get a fair hearing and assessment at DRN.--Andromedean (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 does not intend to participate

As per , User:HiLo48 does not intend to participate in this RfC/U. What is the next step? Arbitration? --Surturz (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that this is a strategy to avoid stress and the temptation to attack others. Fair enough. When other editors are making personal comments it must ratchet up the tension and tear at the nerves for the subject of one of these things. A meltdown here would be disastrous. An alternate strategy for participation at arm's length may be to have a fellow editor work with him to advise on wording. Perhaps some kind soul will step up to help? --Pete (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)