| Revision as of 20:45, 18 December 2012 editWrit Keeper (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Interface administrators, Administrators26,072 edits →Edit warring: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:11, 21 December 2012 edit undoCurb Chain (talk | contribs)18,691 edits →Edit warring: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| ::::Firstly, he has a history of edit warring. Is that relevant? I am simply stating a fact. Secondly, he made personal attacks and you continue to defend his actions by not even addressing this reoccurring behavior from him. Thirdly, you did not comment about the concerns on the article, or the ones on its talk page; what have you to go by simply looking at the history of contributions? Lastly, your comment about my age is tendentious and unnecessary. And most importantly, we expect more from that from admins.] (]) 20:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC) | ::::Firstly, he has a history of edit warring. Is that relevant? I am simply stating a fact. Secondly, he made personal attacks and you continue to defend his actions by not even addressing this reoccurring behavior from him. Thirdly, you did not comment about the concerns on the article, or the ones on its talk page; what have you to go by simply looking at the history of contributions? Lastly, your comment about my age is tendentious and unnecessary. And most importantly, we expect more from that from admins.] (]) 20:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I don't think it's particularly relevant, no. If I actually blocked BMK, then that would be a factor in determining the length of the block, and it would factor into how many warnings I'd give him. But as I opted to give both of you final warnings (since you both should know better), and since I haven't blocked either of you, it's not yet a factor, no. I didn't comment about personal attacks because quite simply I didn't see any on my first read-through of the talk page, though I did see your claim that there were some. I didn't comment about the concerns on the article because that's not an admin's job; I don't get to arbitrate content disputes by virtue of my admin hat, and I don't get an extra-special vote just because I am one. I was there as an admin to address the conduct dispute, not there as an editor to address the content dispute. If I was there as an editor to address the content dispute, also acting as an admin would've been a ''clear'' breach of ]. My comment about your age wasn't tendentious, and it wasn't meant to be disruptive, either; BMK was questioning your good faith, and I responded to him by saying that I do believe you're a good faith editor, and why a good faith editor might exhibit the types of behaviors you're showing. ] ]] 20:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC) | :::::I don't think it's particularly relevant, no. If I actually blocked BMK, then that would be a factor in determining the length of the block, and it would factor into how many warnings I'd give him. But as I opted to give both of you final warnings (since you both should know better), and since I haven't blocked either of you, it's not yet a factor, no. I didn't comment about personal attacks because quite simply I didn't see any on my first read-through of the talk page, though I did see your claim that there were some. I didn't comment about the concerns on the article because that's not an admin's job; I don't get to arbitrate content disputes by virtue of my admin hat, and I don't get an extra-special vote just because I am one. I was there as an admin to address the conduct dispute, not there as an editor to address the content dispute. If I was there as an editor to address the content dispute, also acting as an admin would've been a ''clear'' breach of ]. My comment about your age wasn't tendentious, and it wasn't meant to be disruptive, either; BMK was questioning your good faith, and I responded to him by saying that I do believe you're a good faith editor, and why a good faith editor might exhibit the types of behaviors you're showing. ] ]] 20:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::I don't think you are competent with admin tools. BMK has a lengthy block log.] (]) 07:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:11, 21 December 2012
Articles to take a look at...
- National Arts Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Puck Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yworo (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Whatever
Yep. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Half Barnstar |
| For recent work on asana related articles including cooperating with newcomers on the Parivritta Eka Pada Koundinyasana article BO | Talk 12:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC) |
Mentioned
Note, you have been mentioned by me at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
BO | Talk 16:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Edit warring
Okay, I had hoped you both had the sense to stop edit warring, but it was not to be. Don't do it again, or blocks will ensue. You know better than this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- For clarity, I've just told BMK the same thing. I'm not going to be anything but even-handed in this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've just read the most recent section on your talk page between you and BMK. As an admin, I expect you to be "even handed". No less. This is the standard. BMK is using you as an ally and canvassing you instead of discussing on the talk page. Such behavior is questionable as you seem to have a disagreement with me in the past and is affecting your interaction with me: cf. your discussion about me on the latest section on your talk page. What WP:IAR means is to use common sense, and common sense by BMK's behavior is: "I'll choose the protocols to follow.". Multiple admins have complained or warned about BMK's behavior. Yes, as an admin, I expect unbiased treament, and we will be watching your actions.Curb Chain (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- What's this "we", Kemo Sabe? Anyway, I haven't had a disagreement with you in the past that I can recall; the first time I remember seeing your name mentioned was--surprise surprise--in connection with a dispute you had with BMK; as I recall, you placed a 3O request for the Reach For The Sky, which I answered. Further interactions between us have been in a purely admin capacity, as far as I can remember, which wouldn't constitute any problematic slant of my opinions that I'm aware of. The opinion I've expressed of your behavior on my talk page is my honest opinion of your behavior, no more and no less. It certainly assumes good faith about your actions, and I don't see how it could have been affected by my interactions with you (other than the observations of your behavior that led me to my analysis). After all, as I say in the analysis, I was in much the same position when I started editing Misplaced Pages. If my admin hat makes you feel uncomfortable, I'll happily recuse as an admin; no difference to me. I don't want you to feel like you're being treated unfairly. However, I should tell you that using this recusal to continue edit-warring, by either yourself or BMK, is not a good idea. I'll ask User:Worm That Turned to keep an eye on the page as an admin instead. I do "know" him (as far as anyone can know anyone else on Misplaced Pages without any real-life interaction), but I know of no reason why he would be biased in favor of me, you, or BMK. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, he has a history of edit warring. Is that relevant? I am simply stating a fact. Secondly, he made personal attacks and you continue to defend his actions by not even addressing this reoccurring behavior from him. Thirdly, you did not comment about the concerns on the article, or the ones on its talk page; what have you to go by simply looking at the history of contributions? Lastly, your comment about my age is tendentious and unnecessary. And most importantly, we expect more from that from admins.Curb Chain (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it's particularly relevant, no. If I actually blocked BMK, then that would be a factor in determining the length of the block, and it would factor into how many warnings I'd give him. But as I opted to give both of you final warnings (since you both should know better), and since I haven't blocked either of you, it's not yet a factor, no. I didn't comment about personal attacks because quite simply I didn't see any on my first read-through of the talk page, though I did see your claim that there were some. I didn't comment about the concerns on the article because that's not an admin's job; I don't get to arbitrate content disputes by virtue of my admin hat, and I don't get an extra-special vote just because I am one. I was there as an admin to address the conduct dispute, not there as an editor to address the content dispute. If I was there as an editor to address the content dispute, also acting as an admin would've been a clear breach of WP:INVOLVED. My comment about your age wasn't tendentious, and it wasn't meant to be disruptive, either; BMK was questioning your good faith, and I responded to him by saying that I do believe you're a good faith editor, and why a good faith editor might exhibit the types of behaviors you're showing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you are competent with admin tools. BMK has a lengthy block log.Curb Chain (talk) 07:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it's particularly relevant, no. If I actually blocked BMK, then that would be a factor in determining the length of the block, and it would factor into how many warnings I'd give him. But as I opted to give both of you final warnings (since you both should know better), and since I haven't blocked either of you, it's not yet a factor, no. I didn't comment about personal attacks because quite simply I didn't see any on my first read-through of the talk page, though I did see your claim that there were some. I didn't comment about the concerns on the article because that's not an admin's job; I don't get to arbitrate content disputes by virtue of my admin hat, and I don't get an extra-special vote just because I am one. I was there as an admin to address the conduct dispute, not there as an editor to address the content dispute. If I was there as an editor to address the content dispute, also acting as an admin would've been a clear breach of WP:INVOLVED. My comment about your age wasn't tendentious, and it wasn't meant to be disruptive, either; BMK was questioning your good faith, and I responded to him by saying that I do believe you're a good faith editor, and why a good faith editor might exhibit the types of behaviors you're showing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, he has a history of edit warring. Is that relevant? I am simply stating a fact. Secondly, he made personal attacks and you continue to defend his actions by not even addressing this reoccurring behavior from him. Thirdly, you did not comment about the concerns on the article, or the ones on its talk page; what have you to go by simply looking at the history of contributions? Lastly, your comment about my age is tendentious and unnecessary. And most importantly, we expect more from that from admins.Curb Chain (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- What's this "we", Kemo Sabe? Anyway, I haven't had a disagreement with you in the past that I can recall; the first time I remember seeing your name mentioned was--surprise surprise--in connection with a dispute you had with BMK; as I recall, you placed a 3O request for the Reach For The Sky, which I answered. Further interactions between us have been in a purely admin capacity, as far as I can remember, which wouldn't constitute any problematic slant of my opinions that I'm aware of. The opinion I've expressed of your behavior on my talk page is my honest opinion of your behavior, no more and no less. It certainly assumes good faith about your actions, and I don't see how it could have been affected by my interactions with you (other than the observations of your behavior that led me to my analysis). After all, as I say in the analysis, I was in much the same position when I started editing Misplaced Pages. If my admin hat makes you feel uncomfortable, I'll happily recuse as an admin; no difference to me. I don't want you to feel like you're being treated unfairly. However, I should tell you that using this recusal to continue edit-warring, by either yourself or BMK, is not a good idea. I'll ask User:Worm That Turned to keep an eye on the page as an admin instead. I do "know" him (as far as anyone can know anyone else on Misplaced Pages without any real-life interaction), but I know of no reason why he would be biased in favor of me, you, or BMK. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've just read the most recent section on your talk page between you and BMK. As an admin, I expect you to be "even handed". No less. This is the standard. BMK is using you as an ally and canvassing you instead of discussing on the talk page. Such behavior is questionable as you seem to have a disagreement with me in the past and is affecting your interaction with me: cf. your discussion about me on the latest section on your talk page. What WP:IAR means is to use common sense, and common sense by BMK's behavior is: "I'll choose the protocols to follow.". Multiple admins have complained or warned about BMK's behavior. Yes, as an admin, I expect unbiased treament, and we will be watching your actions.Curb Chain (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)