| Revision as of 13:06, 25 October 2012 editFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,181 edits →Advice: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:56, 25 October 2012 edit undoMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits →AdviceNext edit → | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| Mathsci, this is really meant as a friendly request – could you please consider just taking a step back at the Arbcom thing? I appreciate you feel exasperated, but with all these repeated posts I'm afraid you are really not doing yourself a favour. Just give it a rest for now. You have made your case understood, but now you are coming across as increasingly aggressive, and that only fuels the whole mess more. Please just try and get some distance from this whole situation. (You're always welcome to give me a note if any new problem emerges, of course.) ] ] 13:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | Mathsci, this is really meant as a friendly request – could you please consider just taking a step back at the Arbcom thing? I appreciate you feel exasperated, but with all these repeated posts I'm afraid you are really not doing yourself a favour. Just give it a rest for now. You have made your case understood, but now you are coming across as increasingly aggressive, and that only fuels the whole mess more. Please just try and get some distance from this whole situation. (You're always welcome to give me a note if any new problem emerges, of course.) ] ] 13:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :I appreciate your point. There is a pile-on effect, accompanied by wikilawyering with misunderstandings proliferating. That shows that there's very little order in the whole affair. It is particularly difficult, because Cla68 has made the case exclusively about me. However, I would far prefer if the views of those manning ] and interpreting arbcom rulings took the fore. They have the best idea of what's going on. The point about the motion is that it was phrased as something general whereas it applied to a very specific set of users. I am in fact extremely tired in real life with a whole set of things to do made more difficult by being away from home. | |||
| :Any way, thanks for your advice. I will not respond now except privately through you or other AE administrators. ] (]) 16:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:56, 25 October 2012
 Archives |
|
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII XXVIII |
Advice
Mathsci, this is really meant as a friendly request – could you please consider just taking a step back at the Arbcom thing? I appreciate you feel exasperated, but with all these repeated posts I'm afraid you are really not doing yourself a favour. Just give it a rest for now. You have made your case understood, but now you are coming across as increasingly aggressive, and that only fuels the whole mess more. Please just try and get some distance from this whole situation. (You're always welcome to give me a note if any new problem emerges, of course.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate your point. There is a pile-on effect, accompanied by wikilawyering with misunderstandings proliferating. That shows that there's very little order in the whole affair. It is particularly difficult, because Cla68 has made the case exclusively about me. However, I would far prefer if the views of those manning WP:AE and interpreting arbcom rulings took the fore. They have the best idea of what's going on. The point about the motion is that it was phrased as something general whereas it applied to a very specific set of users. I am in fact extremely tired in real life with a whole set of things to do made more difficult by being away from home.
- Any way, thanks for your advice. I will not respond now except privately through you or other AE administrators. Mathsci (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)