Misplaced Pages

User talk:Crotalus horridus/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Crotalus horridus Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:18, 6 April 2006 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Bad faith← Previous edit Revision as of 19:19, 6 April 2006 edit undoHamster Sandwich (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers3,750 editsm →Bad faith: Thank god for my perfect teeth!Next edit →
Line 27: Line 27:


At first I disagreed strongly with the remedies made in the arbitration case, but my eyes were opened when you edit warred with arbitrators on the proposed decision page. If you persist in attacks like the one on Raul654, I may go and seek the support of two other administrators (which I'm sure would be an easy task) for an appropriate restriction on your conduct, under the General Probation applied in remedy 2 of the arbitration case. --] 18:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC) At first I disagreed strongly with the remedies made in the arbitration case, but my eyes were opened when you edit warred with arbitrators on the proposed decision page. If you persist in attacks like the one on Raul654, I may go and seek the support of two other administrators (which I'm sure would be an easy task) for an appropriate restriction on your conduct, under the General Probation applied in remedy 2 of the arbitration case. --] 18:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

::Having read this post, I simply must know everything there is to know about Snowspinner's teeth. I hope I haven't been sent on a fools errand here! Anon, and away! ] 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:19, 6 April 2006

Talk page archive.

This is disgraceful.
This Arbcom decision means that Wikipedians are expected to be perfect - to never make mistakes. I have made mistakes in the past, as have most other editors. It is unconscionable that occasional, isolated lapses in editing judgment have been twisted into a justification for punishments that have no relation to the alleged offenses, and which even the other party to arbitration has called "completely over the top" and "utterly bonkers" .
This decision means that none of my actual contributions to the encyclopedia matter - only my mistakes do. It means that no one can petition ArbCom without fear of retaliation, since no one is perfect.
I will not be contributing to Misplaced Pages again in the forseeable future.
- Crotalus horridus, 3/30/06.

If you want to, you can write on a Misplaced Pages discussion forum, where you can talk about your case, and any other issues with Misplaced Pages that you might have. The location is http://www.wikipediareview.com/

Rattlesnakes

I'm glad to see someone who has an understanding of rattlesnakes. I've come within close range of the critters on many occasion, by happenstance, and they've always seemed more scared of me than vice versa. I know, too, many friends who've also had very close encounters yet not one of us has ever been bitten. The people I know of, and have read about, who are bitten are those who try to pick up the snake. Pit vipers are not antagonistic towards people. It's likely that far more people have been killed by rodents, one way or another, than by snakes. -Will Beback 10:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith

I feel that your request on WP:RFPP over the protection of the Criticism of Misplaced Pages page was made in bad faith and followed up by false accusations against Raul654. You say that "Raul has been very outspoken on the issue on the talk page", but the only statement he has made there in well over a month is as follows:

Those people adding the links to Wikipediareview you mention are, by and large, the same people who have already been blocked/banned from Misplaced Pages. Insofar as they are concerned, you are confusing cause with effect. I am not assuming bad faith due to the fact that they inhabit wikipediareview; they inhabit wikipediareview because they were kicked off wikipedia after demonstrating their bad faith.
Furthermore, your claim that Wikipediareview contains relavant criticisms is simply untrue. If I want to read about Snowspinner's teeth, or see shock-pictures labeled as SlimVirgin, or read conspiracy theories about how jews like "Jewjg" are going to take over the world, I'll check Wikipediareview. On the other hand, if I want to read legit criticisms of Misplaced Pages, I'll go elsewhere. Raul654 07:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. You may disagree with his assessment; most Wikipedians would not. As an occasional reader of Misplaced Pages Review I think that is an accurate assessment.

At first I disagreed strongly with the remedies made in the arbitration case, but my eyes were opened when you edit warred with arbitrators on the proposed decision page. If you persist in attacks like the one on Raul654, I may go and seek the support of two other administrators (which I'm sure would be an easy task) for an appropriate restriction on your conduct, under the General Probation applied in remedy 2 of the arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 18:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Having read this post, I simply must know everything there is to know about Snowspinner's teeth. I hope I haven't been sent on a fools errand here! Anon, and away! Hamster Sandwich 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)