24 - 23 - 22 - 21 - 20 -19 - 18 -17 - 16 -15 - 14 -13 -12 -11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 -4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Archives

Hello!
I have a request for unprotection this article, FC Steaua București in Europe. What is the procedure? Mortifervm (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Mortifervm (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here I hope you don't mind. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this courtesy is appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I'm not the 539th person to mention this to you off-en.wp--Shirt58 (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha!!! No, I had not seen that one, thanks for thinking of me and posting it here! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote a very rough draft of what is intended as some advice on how to make one's case at AE. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. T. Canens (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll take a look, and make my comments there. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the butane comment per your statement, which I have removed as my understanding is AE does not approve of threaded discussion. If my filing was "an excellent example of how to file an AE request," why has it taken two days to evaluate? Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, and yes you acted completely appropriately removing my comment, which I did intend you to remove when seen. I could not have commented yesterday or the day before at all due to time constraints, but probably would not have anyway, waiting on Ludwigs response. There is also a good deal to read through and evaluate. I cannot speak for anyone else, of course. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shame you weren’t able to be a bit more judicious with your ‘powers’. Your suggestion that the editor receive an extra 5-month topic ban, just for speaking sincerely about the situation as he sees it, and in his own defence, has given that enforcement request all the credibility of the Galileo trials. Doesn't stand up well to the advice article you link to beside your user name either. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you were accurate about what I'm actually doing, your point would have considerably more merit, and I might agree with you. As you are in error, your conclusion is also erroneous. No one is ever "punished" for speaking sincerely. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, you don't think he was speaking sincerely? I do (and I'm being sincere too; having seen the problems he talks about first hand). I don't think he should be restrained from expressing sincere opinions, I think he should be listened to. Fine, if you don't agree, you can ignore his arguments or state that you don't accept they apply. But to say suggest that his comment has moved you from recommending a 1-month ban to a 6-month ban is tantamount to saying "speak again, and I'll make sure that you cannot speak again". Not a wise move where his complaint involves "continual bias" from those who "do not want to be reasonable and are willing to use force to avoid it". -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was completely sincere. I have no idea why on earth you've thought I might not have thought that. His comments show a continued battle ground mentality and a tendency to blame everyone else, but did not address any of his own actions, which is what he needs to do; address and correct his NPA violations and battleground mentality. Please read WP:IDHT, which I mentioned in my earlier reply to you above. Its not that he said something honestly, its that what he honestly said is "I don't have a problem! THEY have the problem!" when it is clear that he has repeated violations. If he's not going to correct his behavior, he needs more time to read policy and re-examine his actions. I did stop short of suggesting an indef topic ban, which is a common sanction for combative editors whose only response is to blame and attack everyone else for their own actions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the term for people who ignore their own advice to other people (or for themselves)? "Uncivil users may be looking for a response when they behave uncivilly. Deny them this. Block them, and you just fuel the fire; ignore them, and you deprive the fire of fuel." I believe you are advocating this. I also believe that you are ignoring your own advice. Moreover, it would seem that the action against Ludwigs2 was started by... Hipocrite? SLP (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to lambaste me, please don't misrepresent me. I said nothing about a 'cabal', nor did I say it was everyone else's fault. I'm perfectly happy to believe that skeptical editors are all independent actors with a shared understanding of the world; it's just that it's a biased understanding of the world (which, granted, they probably don't realize is biased).

I'll add, if you are waiting for me to say I was wrong in anything except poor word choice, you're going to have to show me that I was wrong in something other than word choice. I do freely admit that my word choice is often poor, and despite some of your suggestions I do work on it, but I see no evidence that I am wrong in my assessments. If you think I'm not as neutral as I claim, demonstrate it; if you think I am making some incorrect judgment about a topic or about wikipedia culture, show me. If you cannot show me that, then please don't assert it as truth.

Thanks. --Ludwigs2 18:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stated it was a paraphrase; I prefaced that with the caveat that it was "boiled down"; ie, a summary of meaning, not intended to be a verbatim quote or precise transcription. The part of your post I was criticizing was "a half-dozen editors descend on the page to revert all changes, ignore the talk page or turn it into a quagmire of circular reasoning, and accuse me of policy violations for any trivial thing they can think of." Your entire post was outward facing; you criticized everyone else and your only (very small) acknowledgement that you might have room for improvement was "I don't [like]my attitude sometimes either - but my attitude is a product of trying to reason with people who do not want to be reasonable and are willing to use force to avoid it." in which you say your attitude may have a fault, but then turn around and blame that on the other editors, who "do not want to be reasonable". In short, your only statement which acknowledges any wrong whatsoever blames others for your actions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I do admit my failings, and have done so frequently, in multiple places. I know that I'm temperamental, I know that I speak out of turn, I know that I am incredible strong-willed (to use a polite euphemism) about certain things. none of that is actually in question, and none of that makes what I said wrong. What you quoted above is precisely my experience on multiple fringe-related articles - I can walk you through several hundred diffs of it if you like - and none of my own problems cause or change those facts. All I can say about my bad attitude is that I'm coping with it as best I can and getting better at that all the time; If there's some more concrete promise you need, let me know what it is. It would make my coping task easier if I didn't have to deal with that kind of aggressive behavior, mind you, but I do recognize that the 'coping' is my job to do, and that I fail at it a bit too often.

If you want to bust me for having a sour, jaded attitude, I really can't argue with that. It's true. What irks me is the fact that you refuse to address that I was doing the correct thing on the page, just doing it in an unpleasantly sour, jaded, grumpy way. I'd be OK with you saying I was not doing the correct thing (then we could discuss what I was doing wrong content-wise, and maybe I could readjust my goals on project), but by simply ignoring the fact that I was standing up for NPOV and proper sourcing against misguided science editors you effectively cast me as a different kind of editor than I actually am, and implicitly endorse violations of the project's core principles. Is that what you mean to do? --Ludwigs2 19:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violating NPOV is not what you're at AE about. The report mentions Poisoning the well (with NPA attacks), NPA, and Edit warring. Your only interest, on that page (AE) should be to address the charges. Your repeated insistence that you're following NPOV does not address the charges. Your blaming of the other editors does not address the charges. You seem to think it is germane to the discussion whether you've followed NPOV. Unless "Violates NPOV" is one of the sections added by the reporting party, then no, its not germane at all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you would say that, and all I can do is reassert the fact that by narrowly focusing your view in this way you are implicitly endorsing violations of the project's core principles. I find it astonishing, actually: back when Sandstein tried to block me for seeking help with QuackGuru, it seemed to be incredibly important how the 'good work' QG did offset his well-known tendentiousness; and before that Ronz (when he blew up at me over that dentistry article), was saved from strong sanctions because everyone was concerned about his 'good work' and wanted to downplay his behavior. and ScienceApologist - sockpuppeting, baiting, outing, a history of tendentiousness that probably required a server of its own for data storage - he was loudly praised as one of the project's best editors for the longest time.

I'm an ass at times, yes, but I'm merely on a par with Ronz and don't hold a candle to QG and SA, and yet 'my' correct behavior is somehow "not what's being talked about". does that strike you as proper? --Ludwigs2 19:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SA was valuable. You should be able to defend yourself without denigrating others William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying he wasn't, I'm just pointing out the differential treatment. I can only defend myself within the context of a fair system. If I am to be a second-class citizen on the project, then I should at least be informed of that fact so that I can give up on the concept of equitable treatment.

I'll add, just for information's sake, that that last sentence was not meant to be challenging. I don't really care if it is the project's intention to treat me as a second-class citizen - I can adapt to that role easily enough, and work well within its boundaries. I merely need to know if that's the case so that I can begin adapting. A lot of the things I say that people on-project find challenging are really just me being honest and pragmatic. strange worldview, I know... --Ludwigs2 20:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My advice, for the little it is worth, is to defend yourself as yourself, not by comparison to others. If you don't like it as a moral principle, just treat it as a practical one. You make a number of other arguments that would be best unmade William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me - I'm not sure what's going on here. I offered what I thought was a perfectly valid resolution to the problem, which should have addressed all concerns adequately. You did not comment on it and went straight to sanctions. can you explain that please? I am assuming you simply missed it and will reconsider, which will save us a whole mess of an appeals process. --Ludwigs2 13:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. diff of offer --Ludwigs2 13:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I read it. Your "offer" was basically "I'll try really hard to follow policy, but I reserve the right to categorize editors as a group, like an ethnic or religious group" - this is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to start. You're haggling over sanctions, rather than pledging to do better. You're reserving the right to group editors together - do you know how many editors have been blocked or banned for doing that? "The Serbian editors" or "the Jew editors" or "the anti-Christian editors" - its wrong, simply wrong. Your "offer" merely underlined how problematic your approach in this area is. I'm at a loss as to how to communicate this to you, as clearly everyone on AE and the Talk:Astrology page who has tried has met with the same utter failure I am now facing. Try to re-read the posts made, and the comments made, and look at it from a fresh perspective. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, my offer was that I would stop the problematic behavior while still allowing necessary talk page discussion. Fringe pages already habitually refer to groups proponents of fringe topics as to 'advocates', 'apologists', 'true-believers', and other epithets - both with respect to other editors and with populations in the real world - and no one seems to object to that. allowing one cultural group to be so labeled while prohibiting it for another cultural group is a gross and inappropriate bias. Would you prefer that I open AE sanctions cases against every editor who makes disparaging remark about fringe advocates? AE would be swamped in a matter of days.

The goal of sanctions on wikipedia is to stop problematic behavior, not to enforce worldviews or adjust attitudes. I gave you an option which would stop the problematic behavior without the need of sanctions. I do not see why you reached for sanctions regardless. I am not all that attached to editing astrology: I went on that page because I saw a newb being abused and stayed to try to create a more neutral article, but there are many other articles on wikipedia where I can work. I'm not all that concerned about the topic ban itself, but the principle in play here is very important. I have a great deal of respect for you, and I would really prefer if we could resolve this amicably and easily. --Ludwigs2 14:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your voicing your respect for me, and hope I will continue to earn that respect, the decision has been made and nothing you have said here or on the AE page has changed my mind that you not editing the Astrology articles for a time is in Wikipedia's best interests, and in your best interests as well. If you believe that the sanction is not warranted you may appeal it to WP:Arbitration enforcement using the {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template or to Arbcom directly. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, see you at appeals. Hopefully that will be the end of it. --Ludwigs2 14:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule, and no reason, not to refer to groups of editors on Wikipedia, and sometimes they will be for or anti. But you do so in a civil manner. Sanctioning Ludwigs for merely referring to such grouping is wrong, while sanctioning him for doing so in an uncivil manner is a different story, and part of the overall incivility. But please don't base anything on references to the the mere fact that editors on WP tend to group. B^e——C_ritical 20:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I thought it was clear from context that the issue is incivility. Hence my examples of people eventually being indef blocked, largely for categorizing editors of an opposing view as "Jew editors or anti-Christian editors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between that and categorizing them as fringe advocates and or science advocates or skeptics or whatever. Anyway, I thought your sanction was harsh, and should have been two-step, ban for a time and then re-ban if uncivil. I'd be glad to take some role in that if you and Ludwigs agree, because I'm not sure he knows some of the stuff he says is uncivil. I could redact his stuff or something. Although having time to read his tracts might be a problem for me right now, lol. B^e——C_ritical 20:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I think he was already making a big effort to be civil, he toned it down hugely from the Pregnancy page. I think he knew this was coming, because I warned him. He's an editor worth saving. B^e——C_ritical 21:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notice of appeal. --Ludwigs2 17:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it may have been hard to follow the heavy exchange on this highly controversial page with time constraints. However, there was much heated banter involving all parties, which is not uncommon on this page. In context, Ludwigs2 could not be singled out. His views deviated from many on the page, myself included, but his approach though at times like others robust was never unreasonable. Of the 12 editors commenting, only 2, Hippocrite and Boris Harvester clearly supported a penalty. It's hard not to sense that this has been a set-up to stifle debate by those who oppose his attempts to bring neutrality and debate onto the Talk page. I had expected that an admin would dismiss this or give a 24 hour cooling off ban. Your 6 month topic ban seems unjustifiably harsh. I ask that you reconsider. If your decision is final, can other involved editors appeal against this? Robert Currey talk 06:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not seeing this earlier; please in the future be sure to place a new section at the END of the talk page or I might miss it and not respond.

Ludwigs2's approach was problematic, for reasons explained on AE, both in the case where he was reported, as well as in the Admins comments in his appeal, as well as above on this page. AE is never a popular vote. If all other editors had supported giving him a pass, it would still not have made that appropriate. He has been down this road before several times (see his block log and talk page history) and was cautioned directly by ArbCom to avoid using "drama-creating rhetoric" and to use better judgment in how he interacts in discussions; he knows better. If this was a set-up, then it was done by Ludwigs2; no one else has set him up. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen that your suggestion to move from a one-month ban to a six month ban (because he answered you as he saw fit, not unpolitely and not without reason) was taken up, and the appeal has just closed. I would have liked to have commented but it seems that boat has sailed. I doubt you are interested but would like to let you know that nothing you said demonstrated to me that this was handled reasonably. If you felt a one month ban was sensible in the first place, then there is no justifiable reason to extend that to six-months because of the one response he made after yours. You agreed it was a sincerely expressed comment, so the net result is that speaking sincerely resulted in a topic-ban six times longer than you originally proposed. Of course he should have known better though - it seems to me that for some topics on WP, the more your eyes are open, the more necessary it is to keep your mouth shut. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you sincerely pledge to continue what got you in trouble, your sincerity hurts and does not help your case. He stated, very sincerely I am sure, that he planned to continue a wrong approach. If he was there for vandalism, and had stated, very sincerely, that he planned to continue vandalizing then I would have probably made it a longer sanction as well. Why is this so hard for you to understand? "Sincere" only helps if it is "Sincerely promises to do better" along with "recognizes what he did wrong". I got neither; so no, I didn't take him up on his offer to continue the bad behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider that the problem in understanding is mine. Sorry. I have considered your responses but I have been involved in the problems he spoke out against, saw the comments in their full context, and saw that the editor bent over backwards to try to redress your criticisms, even though it was clearly going against the grain of his sincerely held beliefs regarding problems that really do exist. That's all I have to say. If you don't agree then you have no need to respond to me, because you will know in your heart that you acted appropriately - just as I know, in my heart, the reason why this is one of several recent events that has led me to lose a lot of respect for Wikipedia and the processes that go on here. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. You might like to take a look at a preliminary assessment of what needs to be updated and offer comments on the talk page there? Feel free to point out if I've forgotten anything. — Coren ^(talk) 18:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent thread at AN about lifting the Sarah Palin-related probation. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Proposed lifting of Sarah Palin community probation. Kelly proposed it and I endorsed it. There was little opposition and some support. However I didn't see any comment from you, even though you created Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation and have been active in enforcing the probation. Is it correct to assume that you were aware of the proposal and are acquiescing to it?   Will Beback  talk  20:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see the proposal, and no one informed me of it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly posted a notice on the Palin talk page, and I posted a notice on the probation page, where there was already a discussion about it going back to January. If you have concerns could you write to Kelly about them? She's taken the lead on this.   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was fairly inactive for some time due to r/l; I didn't see the posts on my watchlist. I'm guessing they had scrolled away when I checked in. I have no concerns at all about lifting the probation; the Palin article has been reasonably well behaved for some time now, and if Palin becomes a hot article again it can always be reinstated. Slightly off topic, isn't Kelly a he? Or am I confused again? And thanks for contacting me about this, Will. The courtesy is much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply. I'll mark the probation page as inactive and remove the probation notices from the talk pages.

I'm not sure of Kelly's gender - it's one of those ambiguous names. The software allows one to specify a gender, but I don't know where it shows up if it's marked. No offense intended to anyone if I got it wrong.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the gender indication is not displayed anywhere, actually. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I was writing my last post there, it wasn't closed. I didn't see that until I'd saved my post. Hopefully he'll leave Shackleton alone, like he said on my talk, as well as whatever other articles are at issue. Please understand that he's been a huge waste of time; I spent a whole afternoon going through the history of that page over the last year. It's called opportunity cost. One Ton Depot (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think you would have met with an edit conflict; assuming for some weird reason you didn't, Jonchapple clearly stated, politely, in his edit summary that the case had been closed. Had you looked, you would have seen that. Instead, you edit warred to restore the content and used a snarky edit summary to Jonchapple. While I appreciate your frustration, I suggest you try to approach this with a little less haste and hostility, and not continue to stir the pot. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get an edit conflict and the close didn't show in my preview. I was editing a subsection of the page, not the top. I restored my post just once, as he is, as I said, not the appropriate person to police it. I now see that you've linked to specific revs of the page, which would be why you need to lock it down at the decision point. I'm stunned that you're critical of me, when I simply helped bring attention to another page he was editing poorly on. I've not edited any of the Troubles articles, and have only encountered JonC on Shackleton and Tom Crean (one of Shackleton's team members). I just had the misfortune to walk into a huge time suck. This whole day was wasted. One Ton Depot (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, are you saying you got there via the link in the notice on Jonchapple's talk page? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got to the AE page? I saw it on his talk, yes; in the history, as I believe he'd removed. I'd gone looking at what he's been up to re British/Irish and that's when I noticed the Crean edit. Mostly I was involved in Shackleton, which is where I first encountered him: removing Anglo-Irish and making the infobox not match the article prose. One Ton Depot (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by what you mean by "you need to lock it down at the decision point" - would you clarify, please? The section has been hatted and closed, and was when you made your post. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to you posting links to specific states of the page; i.e. the point you closed it; that I understand why you removed my reply there, to JonC. I did NOT see that it was closed when I made the post: it went in without an edit conflict, and I believe this is normal for section editing; you were editing a higher level section but not the one I was, so no edit conflict. One Ton Depot (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, when sanctions are logged or an editor is advised they are now under sanctions due to an AE discussion, the case is closed - it is always closed before such logs and notices are posted. If you see such a notice, it means the case has already been closed and a decision reached. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KC, just a quick question about how wide-ranging you interpret my topic ban as being – I just got involved at Talk:Belfast and realised it's got a bloody great Troubles banner across the top, even though I'm only discussing its name in Scots. Do you think I should self-revert? This is going to be hard... JonC^Talk 15:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without even looking, yes self-revert. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to avoid any article which has anything to do with the Troubles. If you see a Troubles banner, go elsewhere. I suggest you avoid any articles which have anything to do with Britain, Ireland, their flags (of any era), and find something completely non-Troubles and non-Ireland related to edit. Belfast counts as Irish, as does Peat, probably. Seriously - take a complete break from anything remotely related for the 3 months. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the honest advice. I've removed my contributions. JonC^Talk 16:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I'm glad you asked. If I were you I'd also stop editing Ballycastle, County Antrim and similar articles, as well. They are borderline; they have the potential for crossing the line, as you saw with the flags. You joked about bird articles in the AE case; I tell you now, if you change a category on a bird article from Birds of England to Birds of Ireland, I'm not at all sure it wouldn't be covered. You need to edit something that has nothing to do with Ireland or the Troubles in any conceivable way. Try going to Wikipedia:Community portal and selecting from the Project pages seeking contributors, or try finding something under the heading "Fix-up projects". Hit the Random Article button until you find an article needing help. These are just suggestions, mind you - but they will help you establish a track record of editing productively, and avoid your topic ban. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm going to be doing some serious pruning of my watchlist. :) I figure I'll start editing motorsport articles more; my contributions on here have always been two-fold - the British Isles and motorsport (mainly Formula 1) – so I suppose that's the route I'll go down for now. I'll check out the community portal too, though. Just one more question: are talk pages covered too? JonC^Talk 16:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages were not specified either way, as far as I can find, which was our fault; we should have specified. You can either avoid them, or file a request for clarification/permission at AE. I suggest avoiding them for the short term at least; your name has been too frequent on that page in recent months and a month of trouble-free editing (sorry about the pun) would help considerably to convince admins there that you can be trusted not to disrupt on talk pages. If you *do* edit talk pages, take care you do not disrupt; be especially careful to follow TPG on any potentially related article's talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was not already clear, I do not wish to be contacted by any of the editors or admins involved in the Men's Rights debacle, including yourself, due to their poor, disrespectful behaviour. Do not contact me again even if policy requires it. Hermiod (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If policy requires it, I will follow policy and not your demands. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: if you do not wish to be contacted by any admins enforcing community probation at the Men's rights article, you can always simply not edit that article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in excuses here. You've been asked not to contact me again now do not do so. I will not be making any contributions to Men's rights thanks to the obvious systemic bias that has been demonstrated over the last few days and as such you have no reason to do so.Hermiod (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably a good choice on your part. Be aware; if you choose to edit the article you will be "dealing with" admins who are watching and babysitting that article, enforcing policy and community sanctions. No amount of requests will prevent that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to notify more then the select 4 on the probation of the article, and can a regular user notify, or is this something that a Admin generally should do? TickTock2 (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going thru contribs, and notifying as I feel necessary. If Hipocrite and Ludwigs were newer editors, I would have notified them, but the notice on the talk page is sufficient for editors as experienced as they are. I will notify other new editors as I see them editing. Any editor may notify other editors of the probation; if you do so be sure that you follow the format given and log the notification correctly on Talk:Men's rights/Article probation; do not notify editors who participated in the ANI discussion nor editors who have edited the talk page section NOTICE_of_community_article_probation, which currently includes Hipocrite. Do not notify editors who have already been notified. Use discretion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have acknowledged my awareness of the probation on the notification page in the hopes of heading of needless, fruitless bickering about notification protocols and if notification is a stick, and whatever. Let's talk about the history section now, please? Hipocrite (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the reaction you'll get from most experienced editors. They saw the notice; they understand probation. They want to move forward with productive editing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]