Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:12, 2 May 2010

Not welcome

You're not welcome on my talk page. Please don't post there William M. Connolley (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn right! --75.155.131.181 (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want me to post there then don't sully my interactions with others. Your incivility becomes my business when it involves me and I will communicate your problems to you as needed. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You are directed to note that it is standard civility that when someone asks you to not post on their talk page, it is typically regarded as incivil and disruptive to knowingly continue posting on their talk page, except for mandated warnings and notifications - ie, notices of user conduct RFCs, ANI references, ArbCom and similar notifications. Obvious slips of memory are, of course, fine, and civil attempts at reconsiliation are typically looked apon favorably, but, because users are unable to unwatch their talk page, it is generally unnaceptable to follow them there. If you persist in making comments like this or this, however, you will likley be prevented from further harassment. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I would love for you to take those comments to a group of uninvolved admins (unlikely to find that group though) since those comments are perfectly acceptable and simply acknowledge the facts of the situation. As I said, my statement stands, if WMC baits me or others as I interact with them then I will point out his flaws in the hope that he can improve himself. In-group bullying tactics will not work on me though since wikipedia is not my life and I really could care less if I'm banned. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel I need to go to a group of uninvolved admins. In fact, I will allow you to pick any admin and present the following question to them: "A user asked me not to post on their talk page. Absent required notices, sincere attempts at reconsiliation and occasional slips of memory, would it be a blockable offense for me to continue to use their talk page?" Any admin you want. Hipocrite (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What part of "I don't care if I'm blocked" don't you get? If it makes you feel better then consider the above comments that you linked as formal civility warnings to WMC. Better yet, instead of harassing me on the subject (a shocker!), you could attempt to leash in WMC's behavior. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To your questions - firstly, I get that you don't care if you're blocked, but I don't feel that harassing people - any people - is acceptable, regardless of if it will get you blocked or not. Secondly, civility warnings are not "required notices," and would not be excempt. Thirdly, I don't feel I'm harassing you, and I don't take assignments as to what I need to do to party B to make party A remain civil. Hipocrite (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well since you don't feel that harassing "any people" is acceptable then I expect you to spend an equal or greater amount of your time admonishing WMC for his far greater harassment of Lar. You do consider him to be a person right?

It seems to me that your time would be far better spent going after the source of the problem. Who instigated the exchange between WMC and myself? It was WMC through his unacceptable comment on Lar's page that had nothing to do with him. While shooting the messenger and blaming the victim are common tactics among the tyrants and defense attorneys I think we can rise to a higher level of discourse here. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I said "I don't take assignments as to what I need to do to party B to make party A remain civil." You will either avoid his talk page, seek to reconsile with him, or be blocked for it. Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

TGL, do yourself a favour, ignore WMC. You will be better for it in the long run mark nutley (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Your assignments are clear; the algorithm is transparent. Reconcilation, something I would very much enjoy, seems to be both undesirable and even alien to WMC and clearly impossible if I can't interact with him on his talkpage, but must instead be subject to his churlish snipes on subjects that don't involve him. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• As Hipocrite mentioned, you'll be cut a lot of slack for genuine attempts at reconciliation. Beyond that, though, please stop posting to other users' talk pages after they've asked you to. If you're aware of instances where William, or anyone else, is similarly breaching this convention, please let me know and I'll be happy to have a similar discussion with him. MastCell  18:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you asking me to stop something I haven't done MastCell? This is quite ridiculous and indicative of the situation. Go warn WMC (or better yet block him for a week) for his incredibly rude behavior while subject to his repeatedly unenforced and useless civility probation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I see this isn't going very well as conversations go. I appreciate your barnstar. I appreciate your desire to bring WMC to account for snarking about it. But I must caution you that we do give editors wide latitude on their own pages and if WMC tells you you're not welcome, you're not. The only allowable exception under policy to that is if you are giving routine notifications or warnings and there is reason for them. So, I'd say just let it go. Trust me, it will work out better. Playing the martyr ("I don't care if I'm blocked") is way overrated. If you really feel the need to comment and just can't resist, you can always find a talk page where the owner doesn't sweep things under the rug willy nilly and doesn't tell people he takes a dislike to that they have to go away, and comment there instead... if you pick the right page you'll find that your message gets through anyway. But taking the high road is the better approach. Easy advice to give. Hard advice to take. Hope it helps though. ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you liked it and it was sincere. Frankly, I'd assumed (and still do) that you find me distasteful, but no worries, I'm not bothered by it. I have no intention of seeking WMC out and posting on his talk page now that he has asked me not to (MastCell was incorrect in his assertion that I had), but this decision was based on simple respect, which WMC may hopefully learn from by example. I do greatly appreciate the openness of your talk page (I believe I've mentioned this before), but I don't think I'll need to soapbox there too much. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

frivolous

I don't think you understand. Which is a pity. My request on the enforcement is not frivolous. I have no interest in acting as an admin in this area. I would genuinely like to be banned from it to confirm this. Editors such as ATren are trying to say to me. "You pick holes in Lar's involvement, what about you?" Well I am just an editor in this situation not an admin and I wish to make this completely clear. If you had followed any of my past comments, which I doubt you have, you would have noticed that I think sanctions are a failure.

One thing I do take very very seriously is admins acting as self appointed sheriffs with self appointed agendas, I think this goes against wikipedia principles. This may seem frivolous to you but it is not to me. And before you go off and say "What about X, or What about Y?" I am dealing with Z right now. I will come to deal with X and Y when the situation arises. You have a problem with X or Y, you deal with it and stop calling my attempts frivolous. I won't call your attempts frivolous. Polargeo (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, but it seems to be a frivolous request to me and I honestly think you should look deeply into Lar's history and look at the work he has done. I do wish I had known about your anathema towards "Big Boss" admins - I could've used the support when 2over2 decided to unilaterally ban me for 6 months without even going through the proper probationary channels. Has Lar done anything like that at all?

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -George Orwell TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"Perhaps one did not want to be loved so much as to be understood" -1984, Orwell

There there, bro. I'm sure someone will understand you one day. Keep fighting whatever fight it is you're fighting. --Ubiq (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I already understand myself quite well. I'm an INTJ/INTP hybrid with an addiction to truth, justice and the American way. And like that famous orphan, my moral code is a far greater weakness than any shade of kryptonite. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice

You're skirting close to your topic ban, which 2/0 explicitly noted included user talk pages. NW (Talk) 19:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A topic ban that didn't go through proper channels (because it couldn't) and which demonstrated 2over2's incredible bias and dishonesty. I've stayed away from climate change articles and I was told that Lar's talk page was open to all discussion. The fact that the unwelcome truths I've once again articulated have merited me another threat comes as no great surprise. If you really want to motivate me to take this to ArbCom and overturn the entire ban then go for it. We both know this topic ban is complete and utter guano. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite what you think of the topic ban, it was properly logged under the terms of the probation and is therefore in effect. Feel free to take it to ArbCom if you wish, but I'm giving you advice that an uninvolved admin choosing to block you for such discussion on Lar's talk page would be perfectly in the clear. NW (Talk) 20:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I shall AGF, thank you for the advice, and enjoy my relative inactivity before some uninvolved admin helps cure me of my "live and let live" laziness. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

re Stephan Schulz

Please note that Stephan Schulz does not care to be referred to by his initials; from his name you may determine his country of origin, and 20th Century history of that area infers a dubious connection with the initials SS. You are certainly not the first to make that mistake - I have also (which is why I know StS' views on the matter, and his preference for shorthanding his name). I should be grateful if you would self revert - it is on Lar's talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Germans are so sensitive! TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)