Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:47, 12 November 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)

Get well soon.

I'm always glad to see well edited articles about mathematics on Misplaced Pages, so I hope you will be able to join that effort as your other activities permit. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Experiment

Mathsci (UCL HH) 195.194.4.65 (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Wishing you well

Mathsci, you have my sincere wishes on a favorable recovery. You are always (and have always been) in my thoughts as a stalwart defender of this noble, but perhaps ultimately foolish, project that we all have so heavily invested ourselves in. I have always looked up to you in this regard, since I very first joined this project, although I have not had much direct interaction with you. I myself am unable to commit myself as stauchly as you to the project. For instance, ArbCom scares the hell out of me. In spite of this I have found myself embroiled in minor skirmishes of my own, some of my own making no doubt, but more just because there was no one else around. One thing I have noticed is that after a period of rest, often those windmills we once fought against tend to dissolve when we do not champion ourselves against them. It is the conflict itself that sustains them. I hope you will take this for what it is: sincere counsel from a much less experienced Wikipedian (as well as a young mathematician). I do consider you a friend, and wish you well. Yours, Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Best wishes for a speedy recovery. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Get well soon. Volunteer Marek  01:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Relax, take a break, best wishes William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Reconsider

This really isn't going to do you any favors. In general I'd recommend you back off a bit. I'm familiar with some of the folks you're up against and when they can tell they're getting to you, they bore in that much harder. The best response is to be as dull, laconic and bland as you can manage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this sounds like excellent advice. There are far too many unsavory people gaining pleasure from your pain. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A definite "highly problematic" and "deliberately provocative" strategy has been followed by one arbitrator. That has not gone unnoticed by other editors, administrators and arbitrators. We get the arbitrators that we vote for. The six I voted for were all elected with a clean number of votes. Next time, however, I might look more carefully at their content edits. Mathsci (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It's very hard to see this ending well. Should you decide for any reason, to stop reverting Echigo mole, a large fraction of the problem would go away. It is possible that others might not be as alert as you to notice his edits, but they would not face the confusing problem that you are always the center of attention for those who recommend sanctions. One option is that you could simply open SPI reports, or notify an admin who has been following R&I, instead of doing reverts yourself. I hope you have noticed that Echigo mole has found a way to confuse and frustrate Arbcom. His plan seems to depend on you reacting in a predictable manner. You could stop being predictable. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed and I take your point. Like MastCell (no longer active), SBHB is completely clueful, so there was no hesitation in acting on his advice. I wish we had more clueful arbitrators. In this particular case, where the troll sock was contradicting me, I deliberately scored through their trolling with a note, to make clear that this was a sock edit. Establishing continuity with sockpuppets of any puppetmaster requires a lot of effort and, after possibly clarifying the early stages of editing in 2008-2009, an LTA page will not be so hard to prepare. That has been the missing element. In preparing an LTA page, I think it might be helfpul to have copies of deleted hoax articles made available in private, since I believe A.K.Nole's disruptive editing probably predates the registration of his username. The Devil's Advocate has indicated his intention to act as a proxy-editor for Zeromus1 and hence for two site-banned editors (Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin), so the current disruption is unlikely to end any time soon. If that happens, the socking issues will have become completely out of control. Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Really, just let it rest a while. I know how patronizing it is when someone says "for your own good" but I'm going to say it anyway. I think you could benefit from a week or so of kicking back, listening to some good tunes, and generally staying the hell away from this goddamn dysfunctional "community" to do whatever makes you happy. Consider or disregard this as you will. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrators were told that there would be a request for amendment if the motion was passed. That was even before I privately provided details to AGK of why Zeromus1 was almost certainly a sockpuppet of Occam-Ferahgo. I have no interest in contributing academically to a project where there is no protection from harassment. Mathsci (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop

As long as WMF insists on anyone-can-edit IP editing, we're going have vandals and trolls. You don't deserve to be harassed, obviously, but you just reward the trolling when you comment on closed ANI threads and go sticking Sockpuppet tags on IP accounts. Trolls want recognition and by naming a suspect you just encourage them. NE Ent 13:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If you do't like me tagging IPsocks of Mikemikev, make a complaint somewhere. I would rather you didn't edit my user page any more or post messages on this talk page. If you want to be a know-it-all busybody, please do it somewhere else. Some time ago I privately contacted two admins to semiprotect my user page and Ramdrake's. That is what you should have done instead of posting here in this officious and self-important way. If the messages from the Korean IPs hadn't involved the crying girl or trolling or tags announcing Ramdrake's death, you might have had a point. But that was not the case. There are too many of the IPs to report them at WP:SPI. I would estimate so far there have been about 10-15. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for anything else, but if you wish for your user page to be semi-protected then I'm happy to do so. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be very kind of you. If you could also semiprotect Ramdrake's that would also be great. (I had previously asked Alison and NuclearWarfare, since they are familiar with Mikemikev's postings.) Thanks for your help, Mathsci (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've indefinitely semi-protected both user pages. In the case of Ramdrake, a userpage is normally only protected indefinitely at the request of the respective user, but it seems relevant to make an exception to that in this case. I will leave a note for Ramdrake informing him I have protected his user page and that it can be removed if he so wishes. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)