Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oden (talk | contribs) at 06:32, 2 December 2006 (Response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I may not respond swiftly to queries.

Warning

On my talk page, you said: "I have some concerns of this comment of yours. It violates WP:NPA, in the sense that we shouldn't really be discussing other editors in this manner. I'm not quite sure what it proved by pointing out people's blocks logs, and such comments can only sidetrack the discussion. In fact, it was quite provocative. Please don't make such comments like that again. Violations of WP:NPA and Misplaced Pages:Harassment are considered a very serious matter—and usually end with blocks with the length being increased each time. Khoikhoi 02:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)"

Noted, however I strongly disagree with your assessment; such comments are justified in this particular context. In a RfC the topic of discussion is the editor who is subject to the RfC, but it is also relevant and sometimes even necessary to discuss the past behaviour of the other contributing editors. ´

WP:NPA states: "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks."

WP:STALK states: "This does not include reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."

Finally, WP:RFC states: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors".

If you had contributed to that RfC I would have examined your block log in the same manner that I examined every other editor who contributed to that RfC. I would also have mentioned my own block log if it contained any items.

However, I do agree that outside of a RfC such comments would be considered inappropriate, since talk pages in Misplaced Pages are provided in order to discuss improvements in an article (which might be why you have reacted so strongly as to actually issue a warning).

On a more general note: the entire process of a Request for Comment regarding a user could be regarded as a violation of WP:NPA, WP:Harassment, and also quite provocative. --Oden 05:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that you have placed a sign on this talk page that you are {{busy}}, yet your contributions show multiple edits after that. You have stated that my behaviour "usually end with blocks with the length being increased each time", which is a very serious allegation in my opinion. I am assuming good faith in your failure to respond both on my talk page and yours, but I am also starting to become concerned about your lack of response. If you feel that the warning left on my talk page was not justified you could consider striking it (<s> and </s>).--Oden 06:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, you're not busy, just lazy (diff). My concern was that you were quite verbal when you wrote the warning. I think I understand your reason for a lack of response though, and I will let the matter rest. Sincerely, --Oden 06:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Response

On my talk page User:Irpen has written: "I think the warning is way too soft but the dismissive response from this particular user was only to be expected. His disrputing the user conduct RfC with trollish remarks totally unrelated to the subject in question is pure trolling as well as endless discussions the user conducts very much in line with WP:DFTT#Pestering. The defence above with selective citing policies that obviously do not apply to the user's behavior is not even worthy a responce. --Irpen 06:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)"

Since you wrote the original comment, I would now strongly urge you to strike it out if you believe it is inappropriate. Othwerwise I would strongly urge you to elaborate on it. Please respond. --Oden 06:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)