| Revision as of 20:34, 18 February 2016 view sourceFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,183 edits →Full protection on the misc desk?: +← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:02, 18 February 2016 view source SemanticMantis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,386 edits →Full protection on the misc desk?Next edit → | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| ::Or perhaps next time consider that your actions are disruptive, they are not helping, and they are against community consensus. You really do seem to have some personal vendetta going on, and I suggest you take a step back for your own peace of mind. ] (]) 19:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC) | ::Or perhaps next time consider that your actions are disruptive, they are not helping, and they are against community consensus. You really do seem to have some personal vendetta going on, and I suggest you take a step back for your own peace of mind. ] (]) 19:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::: You would come across as more credible if you kept matters separate that are different. The recent protection of the Misc desk was because there were eight attacks within one hour from three different socks of the nazi troll posting holocaust denial. I protected for 12 hours. Find one single admin who would ''not'' have considered protection under such circumstances appropriate, on any page on this project. As for the reverts on the Science desk, if you like that Vote X person to no longer be banned, go to ANI to propose they should be unbanned. As long as they are banned, their edits will be removed, no matter by whom, no matter where, no matter what it is they post. That ''is'' policy, and that ''is'' community consensus, whether you like it or not. I'm not going to re-remove that particular posting we edit-conflicted over, but I do believe it shows exceedingly bad judgment on your part to restore it. The community consensus is that that person has no right to be on Misplaced Pages, and that also means they have no right to ask questions on the desk, no matter whether one of them happens to tickle your curiosity. Now go away and don't speak to me again; you are not welcome here. ] ] 20:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC) | ::: You would come across as more credible if you kept matters separate that are different. The recent protection of the Misc desk was because there were eight attacks within one hour from three different socks of the nazi troll posting holocaust denial. I protected for 12 hours. Find one single admin who would ''not'' have considered protection under such circumstances appropriate, on any page on this project. As for the reverts on the Science desk, if you like that Vote X person to no longer be banned, go to ANI to propose they should be unbanned. As long as they are banned, their edits will be removed, no matter by whom, no matter where, no matter what it is they post. That ''is'' policy, and that ''is'' community consensus, whether you like it or not. I'm not going to re-remove that particular posting we edit-conflicted over, but I do believe it shows exceedingly bad judgment on your part to restore it. The community consensus is that that person has no right to be on Misplaced Pages, and that also means they have no right to ask questions on the desk, no matter whether one of them happens to tickle your curiosity. Now go away and don't speak to me again; you are not welcome here. ] ] 20:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::::You know, you're right. Since you're asking me to stay away, I will say my piece ''once,'' and it may get long. But here goes: | |||
| ::::I ''was'' conflating a few issues. Silly me, seeing ] behind unprecedented long-term protection, FPAS refusing to discuss anything about the issue in good faith, FPAS, arguing with an actually ''valuable'' administrator at the ref desk over the issue, FPAS, spending hours and hours hunting through IP posts for a whiff of his phantom adversary. FPAS, insisting he has special powers of detection, who can be 100% certain that he knows ''exactly'' which human wrote an anonymous post. Yes, silly me, I lumped some of your intolerable poor behavior together with some of your behavior that is simply unhelpful, though tolerable. For that, I do apologize. | |||
| ::::As for the rest. Well. As you reminded me not that long ago, you don't get to unilaterally enforce an IBAN, nor do I. When I told you that I would try to stay away from you, and that you might consider doing the same, you ''immediately'' started messing with my talk page and getting pointy. So until any official proceedings take place, I have an ability and right to edit your talk page. As an admin, one who recently quoted relevant policy to me, I'd think you'd know that. Part of me would actually be quite entertained if you ''did'' seek an IBAN over my disagreement with you on a policy issue. The record will show that I have been critical of your actions, and occasionally snarky, but overall quite civil and respectable in my conduct. I do not think the records will show the same for you, in this and other recent matters. In addition, I would welcome your recent behavior receiving increased scrutiny from the admin community. And if I end up being deprived of my privilege of talking with you, well, that might be saddening, but it is a burden I can bear if necessary. But honestly, that's all the mean-spirited side of me talking. I actually don't want you to seek an IBAN, and I certainly won't do so myself. I know how to be civil and respectful when I disagree with a user, and I know how to take well-meaning criticism. I just want you to be nice and helpful and constructive, and not waste your time getting angry and seeking remedies that will only make you look bad. This all started on my end because you repeatedly took actions that prevented me from spending volunteer time the way I choose. Had you not done that, then we'd have no issue, and I'd not even know who you were, other than some guy who has name that implies they like language, and who once in a while has something useful to say on the language desk. | |||
| ::::I was actually doing my best ''not'' to talk to you, but your persistent poor behavior, despite mounting complaints and consensus ''against'' your actions, has drawn me into posting here again. Regardless, '''unlike you, I ''will'' choose to observe your request for me not to edit your talk page''' in the future, even though your request was much less civil than mine. I guess maybe I've learned that it's best to follow polite requests, and not enter into ] editing. | |||
| ::::As for the banned user bit: there's this one thing I don't know if you'll ever understand, even though I hope you do -- just because you ''may'' hunt down this person you think is Vote X, and think about them every day, and see them behind any and every IP user, and remove the posts you think are theirs, even if they are completely reasonable -- just because you ''can'' do all that, that doesn't mean you ''should''. | |||
| ::::I don't really care what you think of me. I know that I do good work at the ref desk, almost every day. I know that I've had many many thanks for my work, and never, until now, had any big disputes with another user. On the other hand, I see you involved with all kinds of seemingly long-term grudges and vendettas, and I haven't seen you do any real work to help people on the ref desk in ''months''. Now, that's ok, you don't have to help people on the ref desk. But while want to I ''help'' people find information, you seem to be only interested in turning them away. Maybe it was different for you in the past? I would respect your opinion on the matter more if I'd ever seen you regularly help users at the ref desk, or ever respond to questioning or criticism without bitterness and contempt. And so I will continue to lobby for my simple case: that you shouldn't get unilateral power to shut down the ref desks and ignore consensus, just because you are an admin. | |||
| ::::And as for banned ], unlike you, they have never been directly rude and uncivil to me, and unlike your recent posts, they sometimes seem to have interesting and informative things to say on the ref desks. And if they're reading along, I ''encourage'' them to appeal their case, or simply get a new account and be ''nice'' with it (and follow our rules, it's not that hard and it can be fun). But I digress. I fully expect you to delete this comment soon, but I'll save a copy on my own talk page, to remind me not to post on your talk page in the future. I hope some day you realize that hunting and vengeance don't help build an encyclopedia, and I hope some day to see ''constructive'' edits in your history. Surely someone with your skills and knowledge could be a helpful resource for our users, and I hope someday to see that in action. It really is a pity. I don't know much about you, but I gather your some sort of linguist, and perhaps an academic? I really do think you could help a lot of people at the ref desk, if you chose to. ] (]) 23:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:02, 18 February 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.
Full protection on the misc desk?
You are having a joke surely? DuncanHill (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry, didn't mean to use full protection, of course. Must have misclicked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Next time, check what you've done please. DuncanHill (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Or perhaps next time consider that your actions are disruptive, they are not helping, and they are against community consensus. You really do seem to have some personal vendetta going on, and I suggest you take a step back for your own peace of mind. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- You would come across as more credible if you kept matters separate that are different. The recent protection of the Misc desk was because there were eight attacks within one hour from three different socks of the nazi troll posting holocaust denial. I protected for 12 hours. Find one single admin who would not have considered protection under such circumstances appropriate, on any page on this project. As for the reverts on the Science desk, if you like that Vote X person to no longer be banned, go to ANI to propose they should be unbanned. As long as they are banned, their edits will be removed, no matter by whom, no matter where, no matter what it is they post. That is policy, and that is community consensus, whether you like it or not. I'm not going to re-remove that particular posting we edit-conflicted over, but I do believe it shows exceedingly bad judgment on your part to restore it. The community consensus is that that person has no right to be on Misplaced Pages, and that also means they have no right to ask questions on the desk, no matter whether one of them happens to tickle your curiosity. Now go away and don't speak to me again; you are not welcome here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- You know, you're right. Since you're asking me to stay away, I will say my piece once, and it may get long. But here goes:
- I was conflating a few issues. Silly me, seeing User:Future Perfect at Sunrise behind unprecedented long-term protection, FPAS refusing to discuss anything about the issue in good faith, FPAS, arguing with an actually valuable administrator at the ref desk over the issue, FPAS, spending hours and hours hunting through IP posts for a whiff of his phantom adversary. FPAS, insisting he has special powers of detection, who can be 100% certain that he knows exactly which human wrote an anonymous post. Yes, silly me, I lumped some of your intolerable poor behavior together with some of your behavior that is simply unhelpful, though tolerable. For that, I do apologize.
- As for the rest. Well. As you reminded me not that long ago, you don't get to unilaterally enforce an IBAN, nor do I. When I told you that I would try to stay away from you, and that you might consider doing the same, you immediately started messing with my talk page and getting pointy. So until any official proceedings take place, I have an ability and right to edit your talk page. As an admin, one who recently quoted relevant policy to me, I'd think you'd know that. Part of me would actually be quite entertained if you did seek an IBAN over my disagreement with you on a policy issue. The record will show that I have been critical of your actions, and occasionally snarky, but overall quite civil and respectable in my conduct. I do not think the records will show the same for you, in this and other recent matters. In addition, I would welcome your recent behavior receiving increased scrutiny from the admin community. And if I end up being deprived of my privilege of talking with you, well, that might be saddening, but it is a burden I can bear if necessary. But honestly, that's all the mean-spirited side of me talking. I actually don't want you to seek an IBAN, and I certainly won't do so myself. I know how to be civil and respectful when I disagree with a user, and I know how to take well-meaning criticism. I just want you to be nice and helpful and constructive, and not waste your time getting angry and seeking remedies that will only make you look bad. This all started on my end because you repeatedly took actions that prevented me from spending volunteer time the way I choose. Had you not done that, then we'd have no issue, and I'd not even know who you were, other than some guy who has name that implies they like language, and who once in a while has something useful to say on the language desk.
- I was actually doing my best not to talk to you, but your persistent poor behavior, despite mounting complaints and consensus against your actions, has drawn me into posting here again. Regardless, unlike you, I will choose to observe your request for me not to edit your talk page in the future, even though your request was much less civil than mine. I guess maybe I've learned that it's best to follow polite requests, and not enter into WP:POINTY editing.
- As for the banned user bit: there's this one thing I don't know if you'll ever understand, even though I hope you do -- just because you may hunt down this person you think is Vote X, and think about them every day, and see them behind any and every IP user, and remove the posts you think are theirs, even if they are completely reasonable -- just because you can do all that, that doesn't mean you should.
- I don't really care what you think of me. I know that I do good work at the ref desk, almost every day. I know that I've had many many thanks for my work, and never, until now, had any big disputes with another user. On the other hand, I see you involved with all kinds of seemingly long-term grudges and vendettas, and I haven't seen you do any real work to help people on the ref desk in months. Now, that's ok, you don't have to help people on the ref desk. But while want to I help people find information, you seem to be only interested in turning them away. Maybe it was different for you in the past? I would respect your opinion on the matter more if I'd ever seen you regularly help users at the ref desk, or ever respond to questioning or criticism without bitterness and contempt. And so I will continue to lobby for my simple case: that you shouldn't get unilateral power to shut down the ref desks and ignore consensus, just because you are an admin.
- And as for banned User:Vote_(X)_for_Change, unlike you, they have never been directly rude and uncivil to me, and unlike your recent posts, they sometimes seem to have interesting and informative things to say on the ref desks. And if they're reading along, I encourage them to appeal their case, or simply get a new account and be nice with it (and follow our rules, it's not that hard and it can be fun). But I digress. I fully expect you to delete this comment soon, but I'll save a copy on my own talk page, to remind me not to post on your talk page in the future. I hope some day you realize that hunting and vengeance don't help build an encyclopedia, and I hope some day to see constructive edits in your history. Surely someone with your skills and knowledge could be a helpful resource for our users, and I hope someday to see that in action. It really is a pity. I don't know much about you, but I gather your some sort of linguist, and perhaps an academic? I really do think you could help a lot of people at the ref desk, if you chose to. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- You would come across as more credible if you kept matters separate that are different. The recent protection of the Misc desk was because there were eight attacks within one hour from three different socks of the nazi troll posting holocaust denial. I protected for 12 hours. Find one single admin who would not have considered protection under such circumstances appropriate, on any page on this project. As for the reverts on the Science desk, if you like that Vote X person to no longer be banned, go to ANI to propose they should be unbanned. As long as they are banned, their edits will be removed, no matter by whom, no matter where, no matter what it is they post. That is policy, and that is community consensus, whether you like it or not. I'm not going to re-remove that particular posting we edit-conflicted over, but I do believe it shows exceedingly bad judgment on your part to restore it. The community consensus is that that person has no right to be on Misplaced Pages, and that also means they have no right to ask questions on the desk, no matter whether one of them happens to tickle your curiosity. Now go away and don't speak to me again; you are not welcome here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)