| Revision as of 20:57, 11 January 2016 view sourceFloquenbeam (talk | contribs)Administrators38,302 edits →Please dial it back, FP@S: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:03, 11 January 2016 view source Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,183 edits →Please dial it back, FP@S: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
| Blocks work well with vandals, POV pushers, banned editors, etc. As you well know from your long, long history of dealing with such editors. They don't work so well with estabished editors who happen to disagree with you. I've unblocked both TRM and Cassianto, because this could easily be resolved without threats and blocking, and maybe just maybe this can somehow be resolved without long ANI threads or ArbCom cases. I have long respected your work here, but this was not impressive. --] (]) 20:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC) | Blocks work well with vandals, POV pushers, banned editors, etc. As you well know from your long, long history of dealing with such editors. They don't work so well with estabished editors who happen to disagree with you. I've unblocked both TRM and Cassianto, because this could easily be resolved without threats and blocking, and maybe just maybe this can somehow be resolved without long ANI threads or ArbCom cases. I have long respected your work here, but this was not impressive. --] (]) 20:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
| : Floquenbeam, I too have a lot of respect for you, and for that reason won't challenge your unblocks. Nevertheless, I fully stand by what I did. I have ''very'' little patience with established editors making common cause with banned harassers. It was extremely poor form for TRM to respond to the harasser in the first place, rather than revert them on sight, which is the only acceptable way of dealing with them. Reinstating the posting after explicitly being warned about it was way over the line. The policy on this is crystal clear: if you reinstate postings of banned users, you are taking full responsibility for them. If the posting is harassment, and you reinstate it, then ''you'' will be treated as a harasser just as much as if you were its original author. ] ] 21:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:03, 11 January 2016
 | Note: I like to keep discussion threads together, so if you leave a message here I will usually respond here. If I have begun a discussion on your page, I'll see it if you respond there.
A {{ping}} would be appreciated if you reply at a later date. {{Talkback}} notes here will generally not be needed. Note to new and non-logged-in editors: Due to a long-term issue with vandalism, this talkpage has unfortunately had to be semi-protected. If you need to contact me and can't post here, please just post your message on your own talkpage or the talkpage of the relevant article and add the code "{{ping|Future Perfect at Sunrise}}" to it, then I'll be sure to see it. |
 Archives |
|---|
Soren (given name)
- your answer is provided in the talk page!
Happy New Year!
Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
POV editing
User Meganesia is promoting Assyrian POVs on the Assyrian people article.
Ariel Winter
Hi, I think it'd be ok to lift the full protection now given that both Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Celebrity_breast_size and Talk:Ariel Winter#Breast Reduction have arrived at a consensus. -- Chamith (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
2 Socks
It seems that User:Voyevoda got 2 socks as User:Voevoda and User:Воевода. Worth checking.--Galassi (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0 this is not formatting correctly.--Galassi (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
What if I have business w/ you as admin?
Excuse me, but do you mean, as admin, to prohibit any post or Q I might have of you, s/ you perform any admin action I have Q about, concerning me? (And if so, isnt' that against policy? ) IHTS (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, in the (unlikely) event that I should take admin action in matters concerning you, there would of course be no problem about posting here, in a matter-of-fact way. In any other matter, consider yourself banned from here. Do not answer to this or enquire further now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well thank you, that is decent of you (i.e. "unlikely"). Sincere, IHTS (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Personally I don't think he's doing you a favour. But, it's good that you think so
HNY :) Fortuna 17:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- IHTS, you've been clearly asked to stay off this talk page, including not further commenting on this request (as you then did). You've also had it clarified that you can still contact here for administrative matters; that can't be banned. If you comment here further (except about an admin action affecting you), I'll presume you don't intend to stop, and take appropriate action from there. For clarity's sake, if you need to reply to this, do so on my talk page, not here. Seraphimblade 17:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Personally I don't think he's doing you a favour. But, it's good that you think so
- Well thank you, that is decent of you (i.e. "unlikely"). Sincere, IHTS (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Just pack it in
Removing items from my talk page, including my own comments, will soon end badly for you. It appears that you need to take a long break. Stop now before it's too late. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Having friendly encouraging chats with banned harassment vandals is not looked upon lightly. Do no reinstate that banned vandal's posting again, or you will be blocked for proxying for a banned user and for enabling harassment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not at all. It's my talkpage, and you have now twice deleted my own comments. Block me and you'll be at Arbcom, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Please dial it back, FP@S
Blocks work well with vandals, POV pushers, banned editors, etc. As you well know from your long, long history of dealing with such editors. They don't work so well with estabished editors who happen to disagree with you. I've unblocked both TRM and Cassianto, because this could easily be resolved without threats and blocking, and maybe just maybe this can somehow be resolved without long ANI threads or ArbCom cases. I have long respected your work here, but this was not impressive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam, I too have a lot of respect for you, and for that reason won't challenge your unblocks. Nevertheless, I fully stand by what I did. I have very little patience with established editors making common cause with banned harassers. It was extremely poor form for TRM to respond to the harasser in the first place, rather than revert them on sight, which is the only acceptable way of dealing with them. Reinstating the posting after explicitly being warned about it was way over the line. The policy on this is crystal clear: if you reinstate postings of banned users, you are taking full responsibility for them. If the posting is harassment, and you reinstate it, then you will be treated as a harasser just as much as if you were its original author. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)