| Revision as of 07:56, 12 August 2014 view sourceUnbroken Chain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,193 edits you are free to remove but you may not strike another editors comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:48, 19 January 2015 view source Jehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 editsm Changed protection level of User talk:Neotarf: User request within own user space ( (indefinite) (indefinite)) | ||
| (257 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{banned user|time=indef|by=the ]|link=]}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 256K | |||
| |counter = 1 | |||
| {{noindex}} | |||
| |algo = old(24h) | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 1 | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 2 | |||
| |archive = User talk:Neotarf/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| Subpages: | |||
| *] Index of my arb reports, a regular feature I wrote covering the Arbitration Committee for the ''Signpost'' during the 2013 arbitration cycle | |||
| *]:Slate for 2013 ArbCom elections | |||
| *]: Enables edit counter | |||
| *]:List of Arbcom cases and requests for 2013 | |||
| *]:Some notes | |||
| *] (including link to discussion about "retired" banner) | |||
| *] Wikimania civility speech, August 2014 | |||
| {{Retired}} | |||
| == Query, and request == | |||
| Why do you display a "retired" banner, yet continue to contribute? you don't really work on articles any more. edit summary shows a real misunderstanding; read again, more carefully, to see why this sort of argument actually disproves the argument you say you wish to make. I also agree with Bishzilla that we can call out passive-aggressive behaviour such as , without breaking NPA or even CIVIL. I think I see what you are trying to do, and I think your intentions are good; but please consider whether your current actions are promoting your avowed aims or holding them back. --] (]) 09:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, John. | |||
| I don't remember ever having any interaction with you before this, but I see you have left a message on my talk page accusing me of being "passive aggressive". Since you don't explain exactly what you mean by this, I interpret this to mean you must be upset or in disagreement with me about something. I would remind you that the ] policy considers snide, personal, or aggressive remarks to be "uncivil", as well as rudeness, insults, name-calling, and belittling. I find your remark to be offensive and hurtful, as well as a derogatory and deeply insensitive reference to persons with actual psychiatric disorders, some of whom struggle with their afflictions for years, not to mention their increased mortality and morbidity rates. The ] policy also forbids insulting or disparaging an editor. | |||
| I'm not sure I discern the purpose of your query about the retirement banner. Whenever someone brings this up, it's usually because they disagree with me about something, and want me to hurry up and leave, instead of discussing the real issue. In case your query is a bona fide question and not a rhetorical one, there is a link to a statement about it at ]. | |||
| As far as all the links you have posted on my talk page, without any explanation of what I am supposed to notice about them, I could respond to them a little better if I understood why I am being exhorted to "read them again". Perhaps this is some indirect attack regarding my cognitive skills. | |||
| I note that you are an admin, however I do not see any indication on your user pages of any recognition of any responsibilities that might come with that role. Would you tell me if you have a recall process, if so, where one might find it? Regards, —] (]) 22:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :],it's this inability to understand a simple and good faith message that lead us to a wasted week of everyone's time and a denied Arb case. ] take it to ANI if you want to keep stirring the shit pot but a recall isn't going to happen because he agreed with another administrator, ], that your actions were passive aggressive. A ''reasonable'' editor can see this but that's why he told you that you were too invested because you aren't making much sense at this point/ ] (]) 22:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Gosh, Neotarf, what a lot of bad faith in one short post. I would never say someone was mentally ill, because I am not qualified to make such a diagnosis, and I did not on this occasion. I am sorry you did not take in my central point, that it is possible to criticise someone's '''behaviour''' (in this case yours) without attacking the '''person'''. We have rules against the latter, but the former idea must be familiar to you. I do not know you, so I do not know your personal circumstances, but I imagine you must at some stage have held a job or sustained a friendship. In either of these cases, there will be occasions when someone has to give you negative feedback. To respond by accusing the other person of insulting you and threaten to complain about them is another example of passive aggressive behaviour. If you do not like others identifying your behaviour as passive-aggressive, perhaps you should consider moderating your behaviour? I have to agree with Hell in a Bucket above that you really aren't making a lot of sense at the moment. Time to rethink your strategy? --] (]) 06:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration case request declined == | |||
| An arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. The arbitrators views on hearing this matter, found , may be useful. For the arbitration committee, --]] 15:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:48, 19 January 2015