Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WP:AERFC
• WP:Civility/Poll

We're way better at talking then doing.

--Tznkai (talk)

NB, have not forgotten about User:Buster7/Incivility, just been busy.

Please lift your topic ban Kittybrewster ☎ 10:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

huh?--Tznkai (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You imposed a temporary topic ban on 4 May against my editing articles relating to baronets. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Kittybrewster ☎ 20:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the lifting of the ban, but please, Kittybrewster. Now is not the time to dive headlong back into the same editing pattern that led to the ban. You have waited this long, just take it easy and let the current hoohaa settle before easing yourself back in gently and non-controversially. The last thing you want is to get caught up on the Trouble's hysteria again. Rockpocket 20:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to table this discussion for about 2 days if you don't mind, while we wait for the discretionary sanctions discussion to go through? It is... chaotic.--Tznkai (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is my belief that your topic ban has expired.--Tznkai (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will go with that then. So what did you mean about "tabling it for discussion" (above) in 2 days? What ARE the rules? Kittybrewster ☎ 06:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant I wanted to wait for a couple days before talking about this, not an actual parliamentary procedure or anything. As far as I know, you're just like any other normal editor with the attendant responsibilities, and no special restrictions of any kind. Certain articles (all of those in the Troubles area) have a 1RR, or one revert restriction that applies to all editors. It'll be on a big banner on the talk page. I'd advise you tread carefully in your old content areas, but that is only my advice. Happy editing.--Tznkai (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is good to hear. Plus I now have the knowledge that I should avoid ANI. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting where? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a list on the WP:AE report.--Tznkai (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you can't revert fast enough round here! - besides, I'm more of a face for radio chap :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You and me both.--Tznkai (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Brews may be willing to accept the terms outlined in this diff. (My use of the word 'willing' is perhaps charitable, but we'll let it slide for the moment.) If he abides by the terms described in that diff – no guideline or policy editing, and no articles related to physics, broadly construed – would it be acceptable to lift his current editing restriction? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oop — never mind; you're already on it! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Tznkai. Just my brief two cents regarding your post at AE [2], asking to "stop re-litigating the EEML case and associated issues."

What I'd wanted was some kind of measure to stop Sander from re-igniting EEML issues, as I don't appreciate being falsely called "ethnically prejudiced", as he's already called multiple other editors who'd been having some disagreements with him. Since he's just done this, has a history of doing so, and has been under explicit warning to refrain from doing so from none other than the Arbitration Committee in WP:DIGWUREN, I thought I would take it to the appropriate AE enforcement mechanism to see that this behavior stopped. In response, Sander Säde and his friends reignited the entire EEML case with the usual behavior of besmirching me with stale out-of-context diffs that demonstrate little, if any at all, wrongdoing on my behalf and using the same old diff in order to tarnish me as some kind of POV pusher, merely the latest such attempt, as seen from the diffs subsequently provided afterwards. I made only one recent edit to anything related to Estonia–regarding one paragraph of text I found dubious and asking for page numbers and verification of the source on talk, noting that the material came from a United States-based advocacy group claiming that the trials over Holocaust perpetrators in Estonia were illegitimate proceedings of the Soviet judicial system, and that did not include any page numbers for reference–which prompted him to refer to me as a bad-faith "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" editor, a censor, and an "ethnically prejudiced" POV pusher. As I am naturally tired and exhausted of the Arbitration proceedings, I made only passing reference to WP:EEML in the request for some action in this context that I posted for AE; nevertheless, I am extremely annoyed and outraged by the habitual assumptions of bad faith, the edit-warring mentality, and the personal attacks on Sander Säde's opponents as hate-guided "racists." Thus far, I had by-and-large ignored Sander's and friends' edits, but this is really the last straw, and by no means an isolated instance of harrassment–hence the report about him. If this is not actionable per WP:DIGWUREN, I would like advice on what to do. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get paid enough to sort out the entirety of whatever insanity goes back between you all, but it reminds me of the Hatfield-McCoy feud, with the rest of us poor shlubs sitting in the valley between the cartoon hills. (a Looney toon episode as I recall). What it comes down to is this: I'm not sure who the good guy is. I'm fairly certain there are no good guys, just different levels of bad. Everytime I receive a complaint or comment, it comes pretty much like what you've written above: a combination of article concerns, perspective of real life history, a jumble of links and accusations, and references to wikihistory I took no part in. What you need to do is to distill it down to the barest facts. WHO did WHAT, WHEN, HOW do you want us to handle it and WHY should we?

Also, your name implies to me that you're here to fight battles, and will suggest the same to others. Just an fyi.--Tznkai (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing discussion at AN/I: [3]. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance for stealing your thunder. I experimented with this idea a few weeks ago. It's awfully tedious to do the actual moves and leave notes and tag the bios, but the overall effect seemed to be pretty good. Esp. when only applied to brand new bios, as the author is usually still around and willing to do research. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more detail would help.--Tznkai (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This communication refers to this action initiated by yourself. As you can see here, a number of administrators suggest that I respond by "picking a topic completely unrelated to physics and editing that for a couple of months, and then appealing your topic ban on the basis of good behaviour in those few months?"

Would you consider such action as something you would permit? Would you modify the wording of your prohibition accordingly?

Brews ohare (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my alternate restriction on the clarification thread. I'll put it into effect later today barring any unforeseen complications.--Tznkai (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to thank you for helping me see the light; That WP is really the same, inept police state it was back in 06-07. I was a fool to think it otherwise. I'm now registering my account with the Wikipedia Review.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.