| Revision as of 11:41, 23 August 2010 editShell Kinney (talk | contribs)33,094 edits →Clarification request: nope← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:50, 23 August 2010 edit undoUncle G (talk | contribs)Administrators52,482 edits →JanDeFietser: A requestNext edit → | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
| ::I'm not going to take this to WP:AE, since I have no desire to play a part in the latest round of the ridiculous battleground initiated by Colchicum. But many people were looking for a clarification, but no one asked, so I did. ] (]) 09:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC) | ::I'm not going to take this to WP:AE, since I have no desire to play a part in the latest round of the ridiculous battleground initiated by Colchicum. But many people were looking for a clarification, but no one asked, so I did. ] (]) 09:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::No, it wasn't. The dispute was about the Soviet Union era and later. And honestly, if you want to drop the issue then perhaps you should stop watching what these folks are doing and commenting on it? Continuing to bring things up isn't disengaging. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC) | :::No, it wasn't. The dispute was about the Soviet Union era and later. And honestly, if you want to drop the issue then perhaps you should stop watching what these folks are doing and commenting on it? Continuing to bring things up isn't disengaging. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == JanDeFietser == | |||
| * {{user-full|JanDeFietser}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| I am still of the belief that there is a simple and quiet way out of this, which I've been trying to keep from escalating to involve several other editors in a big row. I'd appreciate it if you or another arbitrator could take a look and see whether you can handle this off-wiki, privately. There's some sort of external dispute, here, in addition to the Dutch Misplaced Pages dispute, which the arbitration committee off-wiki is probably best placed to handle. I expect that JanDeFietser would also like this handled out of the public view of the other disputants, and (given the timing of the user page content relative to the AN/I discussion earlier this year, and xyr edits in the months since) I don't think that xe is intentionally trying to bring this into the English Misplaced Pages, and would be happy to find some route for xem to be able to go back to productive editing. I really hoped that this could have been handled without fuss, blocks, and palaver in just . But I think that we can still come back from the brink here, if arbitrators are willing to talk to JanDeFietser. ] (]) 14:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:50, 23 August 2010
|
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 2 August 2010
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 9 August 2010
Deleted Article Michael Oliver (referee)Hi, you deleted the article about a football referee Michael Oliver due to his lack of notability which was probably spot on at the time. However, this guy has now been promoted to the Select Group Referees who referee games in the Premier League and thus liable to become a higher profile person. You will notice from the Select Group article that he is the only one who doesn't have an article. I suspect the very first controversial decision he makes would result in a lot of totally biased vitriol being written about him as a new article so it may be worth restoring the deleted one as a starting point. (I don't know if I've raised the query in the right way, so apologies if I haven't approached this request in the right manner.) Seedybob (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 August 2010
Race and Intelligence CaseHi Shell... I noticed your recent votes on the R&I ArbCom case, and in particular your comments on Ludwigs2's views of the mediation. A couple of days ago I noticed this mediation where Ludwigs2 was mediator, which was closed earlier today. The consensus conclusion of the mediation was to rename the article Israel and the apartheid analogy to Israel and Apartheid. I took no part in the mediation or the article, having only come across it by accident. Ludwigs2's comments on the R&I PD talk page had made me wonder about judgment, and seeing this mediation and it's (in my opinion) potentially provocative conclusion made me wonder further. Consequently, I thought it worthwhile to provide you with a pointer to this other mediation case for your information, and in case it assisted you in your deliberations. I will post a note to Ludwigs2, advising that I have made this post, in the interests of transparency. EdChem (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Clarification requestSince you were the drafter of this topic ban, could you please clarify whether edits like this (notice the quote) and this breach the letter or the spirit of the ban? The same question was recently asked by the restricted person himself, although after the edits. Offliner (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
JanDeFietser
I am still of the belief that there is a simple and quiet way out of this, which I've been trying to keep from escalating to involve several other editors in a big row. I'd appreciate it if you or another arbitrator could take a look and see whether you can handle this off-wiki, privately. There's some sort of external dispute, here, in addition to the Dutch Misplaced Pages dispute, which the arbitration committee off-wiki is probably best placed to handle. I expect that JanDeFietser would also like this handled out of the public view of the other disputants, and (given the timing of the user page content relative to the AN/I discussion earlier this year, and xyr edits in the months since) I don't think that xe is intentionally trying to bring this into the English Misplaced Pages, and would be happy to find some route for xem to be able to go back to productive editing. I really hoped that this could have been handled without fuss, blocks, and palaver in just two edits. But I think that we can still come back from the brink here, if arbitrators are willing to talk to JanDeFietser. Uncle G (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC) |
gmail.com
