| Revision as of 20:48, 4 December 2006 editElonka (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,958 edits →Mediation request: - Page is unprotected← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:33, 6 December 2006 edit undoWknight94 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users89,452 edits →Mediation request: response to your accusationNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| :PKtm, hiya, the Mediation page is unprotected now, if you'd like to agree to mediation. If you'd rather not be involved though, I think it's okay if you simply remove your name from the list. Up to you. :) ]. --] 20:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | :PKtm, hiya, the Mediation page is unprotected now, if you'd like to agree to mediation. If you'd rather not be involved though, I think it's okay if you simply remove your name from the list. Up to you. :) ]. --] 20:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Per your , I have core policy, ], on my side with . If you'd prefer some other admin handle that particular aspect, feel free to bring it up at ] or ]. Elonka can do the same. If either occurs, I'll gladly leave the issue alone as long as someone is addressing it. At some point, if she doesn't rectify this, I plan to bring it up at one of those places anyway since I know that me personally editing her pages would cause World War III. But her use of original research is a crystal clear violation of core Misplaced Pages policy. It's not my fault that this ongoing discussion has shone a bright light on her activity and alerted me to this and other policy and etiquette issues. As an admin, it would be a gross dereliction for me to let those go unattended. I've let pass various personal attacks and allegations of stalking, sockpuppetry, and whatever else I've forgotten - none of which have been accompanied by evidence or examples of violated policies - and I'd appreciate if you not pile on even further with public mischaracterizations of vindictiveness. You should also be fair and give an example of comments directed at you since I don't recall that ever happening. Thanks. —] (]) 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:33, 6 December 2006
 Archives |
|---|
LostNav
Hey, could you take a minute and weigh your opinion here? I don't think that this guy is fully understanding my point of view, and having someone else in on the discussion might help. Thanks. Jtrost ( | C | #) 14:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You're kidding...
You must be kidding with this edit. She's accused me and others of sockpuppetry, stalking, admin status abuse, personal attacks, harrassment, poll tampering, and incivility (I probably left out a few) and called almost everyone on that page a "madhouse" - all while returning only long enough to post one inflammatory comment per day and ignore everyone's responses. All of this after moving pages and intentionally blocking move reverting with minor edits... but me calling all of that disruptive is the problem you hone in on? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- My point was that the discourse has gotten ugly, and your responses seem to have, well, gotten personal, on this bizarrely minor issue that no one should care that much about. So do the poll. Let's get this behind us. -- PKtm 21:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I was the one just called a sockpuppet so I'm not sure how I've gotten personal but, if you think that, fine. She's turned this single edit of mine into "threatening on multiple occasions to use his admin tools to force through his opinion." My edit was in reference to the multiple occasions on both sides of people doing moves and then minor edits so the moves can't be reverted. Sorry but when software abuse is done that blatantly, any admin is within their rights to unblock that move - and that goes for both sides of the fence because Ned Scott (talk · contribs) did the same thing in the other direction. (I give him kudos for at least admitting to the illicit action).
- As far as a new poll, if you want a new poll, say so. If it seems like there's consensus to do a new poll, we'll do a new poll. But we shouldn't do one just because one person wants one and, under the guise of incivility and unreported personal attacks, chooses to ignore the seven or eight other people who disagree. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
My Comments
I believe my responses were reasonable given what I was responding to. Sorry you didn't like them. I've moved on. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Mediation request
 | This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
 | Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead. |
—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- PKtm, hiya, the Mediation page is unprotected now, if you'd like to agree to mediation. If you'd rather not be involved though, I think it's okay if you simply remove your name from the list. Up to you. :) Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). --Elonka 20:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Per your calling my actions vindictive, I have core policy, WP:NOR, on my side with the request I made. If you'd prefer some other admin handle that particular aspect, feel free to bring it up at WP:AN or WP:ANI. Elonka can do the same. If either occurs, I'll gladly leave the issue alone as long as someone is addressing it. At some point, if she doesn't rectify this, I plan to bring it up at one of those places anyway since I know that me personally editing her pages would cause World War III. But her use of original research is a crystal clear violation of core Misplaced Pages policy. It's not my fault that this ongoing discussion has shone a bright light on her activity and alerted me to this and other policy and etiquette issues. As an admin, it would be a gross dereliction for me to let those go unattended. I've let pass various personal attacks and allegations of stalking, sockpuppetry, and whatever else I've forgotten - none of which have been accompanied by evidence or examples of violated policies - and I'd appreciate if you not pile on even further with public mischaracterizations of vindictiveness. You should also be fair and give an example of comments directed at you since I don't recall that ever happening. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)