| Revision as of 15:18, 2 February 2007 editLight current (talk | contribs)30,368 edits →My proposal to LC: blklines← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:36, 16 January 2022 edit undoMeters (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers172,174 edits Undid revision 1066081862 by Aca1291 (talk) what are you doing? The user is allowed to archive his talk pageTags: Replaced Undo | ||
| (319 intermediate revisions by 96 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Welcome to my talk page; please leave new messages at the bottom |
Welcome to my talk page; please leave new messages at the bottom. | ||
| * ] | |||
| {| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;" | |||
| |- | |||
| |This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by Werdnabot. Any sections older than '''14''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived | |||
| |- | |||
| |}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-14 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:SCZenz/Archive9--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | |||
| Pre-admin archives: | |||
| * ] - July - October 05 | |||
| * ] - October - December 05 | |||
| Post-admin archives: | |||
| * ] - December 05 | |||
| * ] - December 05 - March 06 | |||
| * ] - April 06 - May 06 | |||
| Werdnabot archives: | |||
| * ] - June 06 | |||
| * ] - June 06 - August 06 | |||
| * ] - Sept 06 - Nov 06 | |||
| == black rights == | |||
| thank you. i guess i didnt do this right the first time because i never got an answer. either that or i just didnt know where to look. anyway thanx again. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 18:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small> | |||
| == Are your ears burning? == | |||
| ] ] 23:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==THB Block== | |||
| Hello SCZenz! I recently visited and noticed that you blocked him for 24 hours. I would like to thank you for doing that. It is people like that that make Misplaced Pages look like a bad place. Thank you for excellant works here on Misplaced Pages! ] 02:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not much of a fan of ]; I would prefer to have people modify their behavior and contribute more positively than to block them. Sometimes, sadly, the only possible first step to helping a user to improve is to show them that there are limits, and that they are enforceable. I appreciate your thanks of course, but I must admit I'd rather be getting accolades for writing articles than dealing with such unpleasantness. -- ] 02:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked Light current == | |||
| Hey; I blocked Light current for 24 hours because he was on ], was warned and and then , following the usual pattern. | |||
| I hope it doesn't make THB more difficult for you to deal with, but Light current has got to get it through his head that stirring the pot like this to try to provoke further friction just isn't acceptable. ](]) 16:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi again. It might be best to just flatly ignore Light current's baiting while he's blocked. At best – and this would by no means be a ''good'' outcome – it will end up with him worked up into doing something that will end up with his block extended. At worst, it will give him the idea that the sort of lawyering and taunting he's doing is an acceptable way to try to engage the community in discussion (even while blocked), and you do yourself a disservice to . | |||
| Explaining the problems with his conduct to him – in very basic terms – has been tried before by a number of editors and with limited success; I'm not sure that further efforts along the same lines are likely to be fruitful. Cheers, ](]) 17:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think my comment there came out quite right either; I was trying to get him to think about the absurdity of the allegations he was making, because honestly I am not so sure he understands fully the implications of what he says sometimes. I have more to say about my interpretation of Light current's behavior, but I think it is best for the remainder to be sent via private email. -- ] 17:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: If I may interject, I'm beginning to think ToaT is correct in that engaging LC on his talk page during his blocks is simply adding fuel to his fire. Like SCZenz, my natural inclination is to reason with him when he makes such absurd statements. However, appeals to logic clearly don't work when one is absolutely and unwaveringly convinced that one's position is correct. I also strongly concur with SCZenz's recent comment on my talkpage. The perception of an "us-vs-them" situation is regretable, but no-one should excuse the blantant disregard for policy in an effort to avoid it. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'd say that LC is once again seeking attention; I'm walking away from discussion and I recommend that you do the same. He's not listening to what we're saying, and I don't think further comments from us will be helpful—we've seen the Light current suicide spiral before. ](]) 22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (I was a bit hasty typing the above remark, since I wanted to try to nip a potential forest fire in the bud). To clarify, I think your response was perfectly reasonable, but I also know that engaging LC by letting him 'play dumb' is not apt to be productive. ](]) 23:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, I understand this. So what the hell do we do now? Ignore him entirely? I did that today on my talk page, by simply deleting a bunch of the same "playing dumb," but it's not clear how to apply that solution to his attention-seeking on the reference desk and its talk page. Maybe just remove what's innapropriate without discussion, and see if he gets the picture eventually? -- ] 23:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That might work. To be honest, I haven't reviewed his contributions today anywhere but on his talk page, and I was responding solely to that (mis)behaviour. I'm hesitant to endorse a remove-without-comment strategy solely because it's likely to provoke a storm of ''other'' problems, but I can see how mentioning a removal anywhere is apt to give LC a place to soapbox, as well as start him digging himself into deeper trouble. Hmmm...do have any diffs from today that might represent the edits you would be inclined to remove? (I know that looking through Light current's contributions is a pain, since he doesn't seem to preview or use the minor edit check box.) ](]) 23:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I think the best thing to do is make your point to LC about your concerns, but then to resist elaborating when the inevitable questioning arises. Its becoming clear that his requests for clarification are a diversionary tactic, so simply don't be diverted. His past behavioural patterns are now well established, so a warning can be issued and if he doesn't heed that warning then action should be taken. Further discussion serves no purpose. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 00:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yes, but are we really going to block him for constant silly attention-seeking and jabs at other editors? If we start down that road again, it's pretty clear that things will escalate and in the near future we'll end with an indefinite block. Is there some way to deal with these issues that lets us avoid chatter ''and'' keep his good contributions? -- ] 08:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I don't think it is justifiable to block for attention seeking, no matter how irritating and distracting it is. By "action" I didn't necessarily mean a block. I just try to ignore his obvious attention seeking posts, like the one about the RD being better with or without him, but I suppose one could justify removal of it from RD and article talk pages as being off topic and disruptive. Though moving it to his talk page might be better than just deleting it. A clear explanation of why it was removed - and perhaps a link to it on his talk page - would suffice. Any further debate need not be entered into. Thats said, I fully expect this would agitate him - and those that take umbrage over deletion in general - into another round of insults, but I think that the inevitable outcome of anything that attenuates attention-seeking behaviour. So, I guess the bottom line is either his behaviour is tolerated or we accept that an indef block might be the only solution left open if he doesn't stop it. I'd hate to have to do that, especially to one with such a great record of article-space edits, but after three of four shorter blocks and no change, I can see no other way. Moreover, it would certainly be controversial, as in isolation his edits are barely blocking offenses, never mind deserving of an indef block. Its only the persistence that makes it actionable in my eyes. | |||
| :::::I guess if anyone was genuinely willing to indef block him, it could be used in a last ditch attempt to make him realise that he has to change his ways if he wants to have a future here, which ironically enough, is what we ''all'' seem to want. One would hope that faced with an indef block he might see reason, but somehow I doubt it. And of course, such a warning would be pointless unless it had teeth. Even if there was support for this course of action next time LC loses his temper, I would certainly want to float it at the noticeboard before acting. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 09:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: To Ten: You could start with all the edits he's made to my page recently, plus the attention-seeking "is the reference desk better with or without me?" discussion and vote he created on the ref desk talk page. -- ] 08:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To address your apparent concerns that I am seeking attenytion on the RD talk page, I have removed the opinion request material to my talk page whils just leaving the hdg. I hope that is satisfactory. 8-|--] 10:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment from Light current === | |||
| You are effectively gagging me for removing my replies to allegations hereIf you continue to remove my comments from your talk, . I shall feel free to remove your comments wherever thay occur! And please stop conspiring against me. It is not healthy. Remeber Admins are bound by rules. You seem to forget that when it suits you. 8-((--] 08:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)--] 08:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You are either incapable, or feign to be uncapable, of understanding aspects of your behavior that are inappropriate. In the above we're not "conspiring against you," we're doing our job by conferring transparently about how to deal with your unique and rather difficult behavior. Explaining seems to make things worse, as do ultimatums, so I am at a loss for what else to do but ignore you and keep you from distracting others. Please do not remove my comments, unless they are off-topic and unhelpful, in some kind of imagined "reciprocity." You're not being gagged, but your arguments are not helpful at this point—either file an RfC regarding our actions, or stop taking jabs at us until you do. I'm doing what I think is best under Misplaced Pages policy, and your speeches won't change that because obviously you interpret that policy rather differently than I do. For the above reasons, this is the only reply you'll get here on this topic. -- ] 09:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which particular aspects are you talking about? Do you expect me to take a load of shit from you lot and say nothing or be gagged from saying anything in my defence? | |||
| ::Lets just see what it is you want me to do: | |||
| ::*Say nothing in reply to any and all attacks on me? | |||
| ::*Apologise and grovel profusely for something I say that only about 3 people object to? | |||
| ::*Stop posting and editing altogether? | |||
| ::BTW my Q on the RD about whether its better without me is a genuine one prompted by attacks from a few admins (mostly). Te fact that you cant see that reflects more on your minds than on mine. | |||
| ::The purpose of the experiment was to test feeling of whether I should recuse myself altogether from the Rds. So in one respect it is attention seeking, but only to guage editors opinions of my contributions to RDs. I said I was goung to undertake the experiment and even asked to be selectively blocked from the RDs. The experiment has concluded. Im awaiting comments on the results. So far they are inconclusive. If the majority of editors feel the Rds would be better without me, Im prepared to give up editing there. I cant say fairer thasn that can I?--] 10:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::So does the above allay any fears or am i just wasting my breath as usual/ Does it matter at all to you what I thikn or say/ or am i just wasting my time posting here?--] 13:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Cards on table == | |||
| Look SCZ if the '''majority''' of people on WP want me to stop editing any particular portion of the encyclopedia, or stop editing completely, Im willing to listen to that. | |||
| ATM however I just have a few Admins who dont like me telling me their views. Is that small number (all Admins) representative of the whole community? --] 14:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Forgive == | |||
| No, you should be making more jokes!!! ] 13:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Sadly, my effort to set a good example on the reference desk over the past few months has made this inadvisable. I suppose, if I wanted to set a really good example, I would make jokes in appropriate places and appropriate ways—l'll work on that. -- ] 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Stalking== | |||
| Are you starting to stalk me?--] 13:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No. -- ] 13:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Good! So how come you noticed my edit on the disruptiion page?--] 13:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :]. -- ] 13:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::So you are '''honestly''' telling me that you had that page on your watch list long before I stated editng it? if that is truly the case I apologise. Did you have it there?--] 13:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've had it on my watch list since December 7 2006, when StuRat brought the page to my attention. Please do not make a habit of questioning people in this confrontational manner; neither I nor anyone else has an obligation to explain to you how we came upon a certain page, unless there is a pattern of disruption. -- ] 14:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Touchy!!So how was my Q confrontational? I just wanted to make sure you were not decieving me agian (like the other times)--] 14:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(edit conflict) Please provide evidence (i.e. diffs) of me deceiving you, preferably in the context of ]. If you do not have any such thing, then please ] about me (and all other users) in the future. -- ] 14:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We both know about that. Theres no point dragging it up again now. Maybe later if you really insist.--] 14:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I do not appreciate hosting unsubstantiated accusations on my talk page. I'd like you to either illustrate your claims or withdraw them, please. -- ] 14:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It will take some time for me to find the diffs. In the meantime feel free to strike oout or delete my offending acusations.--] 14:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Found one: | |||
| To ] I think: | |||
| ''Your comment is noted, and you're probably right. The ambiguity was a calculated decision on my part; my intention was to give him the impression that I might take his side if he talked to me, in an effort to get him to discuss things rather than continuing to inflame the situation. It appears that was the wrong thing for me to do. -- SCZenz 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| Ring any bells? Do you need any more?--] 15:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry I cant get the diffs out of pschems archive but heres the transcript: | |||
| == Light current == | |||
| was uncalled for! First of all, I didn't read ''any'' discussion on ] until just now, because I had thought the discussion was on ] and couldn't find it. I was rather responding to , in which he seemed very frustrated but totally non-specific. Nowhere did I say he was right or that anyone was being abusive; I was simply trying to ask him to explain why he'd said what he said. | |||
| If you want my thoughts on how to deal with LC, I'm happy to discuss, but I thought I'd get this out of the way first. It seems to me that you rather misunderstood my position here, and the way you called me out at WP:AN kind of bothers me. -- ] 17:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :And how else am I to interpret "Admins giving you crap?" That was totally uncalled for on your part. Might I suggest that next time you find out who those admins are before you make such comments? ] | ] 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was a question. He said admins were giving him crap (or similar), and I was asking about it. I can see the source of the misunderstanding: you read it as me agreeing he has a problem, and offering to help. That was not my intention however, it was more to say "Oh, admins are giving you crap, are they?" and ask him to clarify. I apologize for the ambiguity. -- ] 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :FWIW (butting in here and replying to the original post), SCZenz, that's how I interpreted your post to LC's talk page (the same way pschemp did), until I thought about it. I realise you were just quoting LC's words and reflecting his interpretation, but you have to be more careful of how you express yourself, IMO. Because part of LC's MO is that he seeks community approval for his position, then once he thinks he has it, he really digs in and gets aggressive. IMO he's interpreted your communication to him as support for his position, and he's been correspondingly more hostile and positional as a result. ] 17:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your comment is noted, and you're probably right. The ambiguity was a calculated decision on my part; my intention was to give him the impression that I ''might'' take his side if he talked to me, in an effort to get him to discuss things rather than continuing to inflame the situation. It appears that was the wrong thing for me to do. -- ] 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whee, I was actually hoping that was your intent deep down when I first read the comment because you've always seemed reasonable in past interactions. Thanks for making this clear. Anchoress is correct here, that's the pattern. My only aim is to see the reference desk be a bit more professional and not used for personal discussions so much. ] | ] 18:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Actually Anchoress is wrong about me this time. I actually put SCZ s comments on the back burner whilst I was replying directly to the main protagonists. Any hostility or aggression shown by me (of which actually there was remakably little if you check my posts) was a pure reaction to that shown to me by pschemp and others. Nothing at all to do with SCZens offer of help which I have now accepted BTW. Hope that clears that misunderstanding. 8-)--Light current 18:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == My proposal to LC == | |||
| Hi Pschemp, | |||
| In response to LC asking me (giving the different tones I've taken with different people in an effort to resolve this) what my position is and whether I'm serious by helping, I wrote/proposed the following: | |||
| :Good question. I'm being put between a rock and a hard place by the two sides here, so let me be 100% clear on what I think, and what I propose we do: | |||
| :#I think you've made some comments that were inappropriate. | |||
| :#Others have tried to point this out, and you haven't reacted well. | |||
| :#Threatening to block you has not been a productive way of handling the situation, nor are pile-ons of many people saying the same thing. | |||
| :#The situation has been inflamed, as I said, by both sides focusing on their own "rights" and the other party's excesses. | |||
| :#You are an extraordinarily helpful editor, in general, and I think continuing down the current path is all too likely to result in hardened positions, frustration, and Misplaced Pages losing your contributions. This would be very bad. | |||
| :#I can convince pschemp, and others, to leave the situation to me, in the mentorship discussed above. They will expect me to keep you from saying inappropriate/unhelpful things at the reference desk, and I will do this. However, I will do it ''as far as possible'' by discussing issues and helping you understand what the complaints are, rather than by removing your comments or making threats. | |||
| :#As long as I am able to work with you and roughly meet these expectations, other admins will leave you alone and none of them will block you. | |||
| :I have tried to take a concilliatory tone with both sides in order to sort this out, but this is my honest proposal. I'll copy it to the other pages where this is being discussed. Can you accept it? | |||
| What do you think, pschemp? -- ] 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Works for me. Good luck. Btw, the block threat was for re-inserting the removed comments, not for actually making them. There is no current threat to block, nor have I looked at his contributions (or plan to.) I was happy with the rewrite of the comment that's already been done. ] | ] 19:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think thats the lot. Although I could be wrong 8-)--] 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Apologies == | |||
| Well my sincere apologies for assuming bad faith. I hope you will forgive me 8-)--] 14:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Apology accepted. I hope you recognize that your question was an ], regardless of what my answer was or whether I answered or not at all, and do your best not to repeat the mistake. -- ] 14:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes I just said above that I assumed bad faith and apologised for it! (just seemed a bit of a coincidence thats all). I do apologise when Im shown to be wrong. In this case I was dead wrong and Im very sorry for doubting your good intentions. etc 8-(--] 14:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would like to make sure you understand that questioning people because something "seemed a bit of a coincidence" will be an assumption of bad faith next time, too. -- ] 14:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Do you always have to have the last word after I have made a sincere and grovelling apology? Thats what really rubs me the wrong way !--] 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Can I have the last word? Light current's apologised and explained why he made the mistake. SCZenz has accepted the apology. Can all parties now drop this incident, please? I think it's run its course. --] 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes you can! Thanks!!--] 14:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:36, 16 January 2022
Welcome to my talk page; please leave new messages at the bottom.