Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:12, 2 February 2007

Welcome to my talk page; please leave new messages at the bottom. I'll respond on your talk page, unless you request otherwise.

Pre-admin archives:

• /Archive1 - July - October 05
• /Archive2 - October - December 05

Post-admin archives:

• /Archive3 - December 05
• /Archive4 - December 05 - March 06
• /Archive5 - April 06 - May 06

Werdnabot archives:

• /Archive6 - June 06
• /Archive7 - June 06 - August 06
• /Archive8 - 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oahulani (talk • contribs) 18:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Are your ears burning?

Hmmm. Friday (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

THB Block

Hello SCZenz! I recently visited THB's User page 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! Eric 02:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not much of a fan of schadenfreude; 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. -- SCZenz 02:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Light current

Hey; I blocked Light current for 24 hours because he was stirring the pot on User talk:THB, was warned by Rockpocket and by me and then played dumb about it, 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. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 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 interact with him on those terms.

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, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 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. -- SCZenz 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. Rockpocket 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. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 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. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 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? -- SCZenz 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.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 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. Rockpocket 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? -- SCZenz 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. Rockpocket 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. -- SCZenz 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-|--Light current 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-((--Light current 08:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)--Light current 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. -- SCZenz 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?--Light current 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?--Light current 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? --Light current 14:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgive

No, you should be making more jokes!!! >Radiant< 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. -- SCZenz 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

Are you starting to stalk me?--Light current 13:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No. -- SCZenz 13:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good! So how come you noticed my edit on the disruptiion page?--Light current 13:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Watchlist. -- SCZenz 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?--Light current 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. -- SCZenz 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)--Light current 14:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please provide evidence (i.e. diffs) of me deceiving you, preferably in the context of a formal dispute resolution process. If you do not have any such thing, then please assume good faith about me (and all other users) in the future. -- SCZenz 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.--Light current 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. -- SCZenz 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.--Light current 14:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Found one: To User:Pschemp 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?--Light current 15:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I cant get the diffs out of pschems archive but heres the transcript:

/Transcript

I think thats the lot. Although I could be wrong 8-)--Light current 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. I might have taken your side if you had had a legitimate grievance, and I was trying to offer a sympathetic ear in order to start a discussion. Then when pschemp took offense, I was trying to clarfy that I had not prejudged the situation against her. Unfortunately, walking that kind of tightrope requires delicate wording, and I freely admit that I did not succeed in either my comments to you or to pschemp. However, I don't believe this constitutes evidence that I was trying to deceive you or anyone else. I think it's best to drop this subject, don't you? -- SCZenz 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

LLIm prepared to forgive and forget if you are! 8--)--Light current 17:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Well my sincere apologies for assuming bad faith. I hope you will forgive me 8-)--Light current 14:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I hope you recognize that your question was an assumption of bad faith, regardless of what my answer was or whether I answered or not at all, and do your best not to repeat the mistake. -- SCZenz 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-(--Light current 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. -- SCZenz 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 !--Light current 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. --Dweller 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes you can! Thanks!!--Light current 14:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)