| Revision as of 14:27, 26 March 2013 editLecen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,620 edits →One comment about the request for arbitration regarding "Argentine History": ce← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:07, 26 March 2013 edit undoMarshalN20 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,094 edits →One comment about the request for arbitration regarding "Argentine History"Next edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| I know I shouldn't be in here and I promise I won't bother you any longer. Some of the Arbitrators "suggested" that I should seek mediation again. I knew it would be useless. So far, I had been the only one who had tried all dispute resolution procedures. Even so, today (I repeat, today) I opened a mediation request. What happened? The obvious: and . To MarshalN20, this is all a joke: He's comfortable knowing that he will get away due to the Administrators' lack of interest. Meanwhile, he and his friend Cambalachero will also have fun harassing me on my FAC. And before you wonder: neither are FAC reviewers (see their history log) not have ever edited the article I nominated (or used its talk page). This is not merely "content dispute". We have two editors pushing fringe views, playing with time and with the Community's lack of interest while at the same time they harass the sole editor who are trying to stop them. Perhaps know you have a small idea of all I've been through in the last three years. --] (]) 14:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC) | I know I shouldn't be in here and I promise I won't bother you any longer. Some of the Arbitrators "suggested" that I should seek mediation again. I knew it would be useless. So far, I had been the only one who had tried all dispute resolution procedures. Even so, today (I repeat, today) I opened a mediation request. What happened? The obvious: and . To MarshalN20, this is all a joke: He's comfortable knowing that he will get away due to the Administrators' lack of interest. Meanwhile, he and his friend Cambalachero will also have fun harassing me on my FAC. And before you wonder: neither are FAC reviewers (see their history log) not have ever edited the article I nominated (or used its talk page). This is not merely "content dispute". We have two editors pushing fringe views, playing with time and with the Community's lack of interest while at the same time they harass the sole editor who are trying to stop them. Perhaps know you have a small idea of all I've been through in the last three years. --] (]) 14:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::The joke here are all of the accusations of fascism and nazism made by Lecen. Am I supposed to take them seriously? | |||
| :::Lecen's behavior has been noted as both childish () and exhibiting ] issues () by independent editors. The whole problem is efficiently summarized in ]. | |||
| :::Furthermore, as I wrote in the Mediation talk page (), the ] process has not even taken place for this user to take the matter to mediation (much less ArbComm). | |||
| :::I may not have the 12 FA stars that Lecen constantly brags about, but I am a user with an integrity certified by a handful of barnstars. However, if you agree with Lecen's perspective of things, then perhaps my two GA's (] and ]), should also be thoroughly hounded for their pro-Nazi bias. | |||
| :::Heil ]!--] | ] 22:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:07, 26 March 2013
 | Welcome to Jehochman's Talk Page Please feel free to put your feet on the coffee table, and speak candidly. Or for more better relaxation, stretch yourself luxuriously on the chaise longue in Bishzilla's Victorian parlour and mumble incoherently. |
Hi there
Saw your questions, and will answer tomorrow; I'm trying to finish up something arbcommy tonight. Risker (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- All right, thank you. Jehochman 13:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Visibility and corruption re election guides
Jonathan, how do you mean "a few guide writers… get their guides promoted on the arbitration election pages"? And the election pages "elevate the opinions of a select few to higher visibility"? I thought all the individual guides were simply listed on those pages? At least in more recent times. Maybe I don't remember it right. Got a link or two for guidance, please? Bishonen | talk 00:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC).
- Here's an example of how it used to be. After much dickering, I was able to make this edit so that the template now looks like this: Template:ACE2012. Ideally the guides would disappear completely from the template. Campaigning should not be allowed so close to the voting booth, nor should the guides be given such an appearance of officialness. The template appears on all official election pages. Jehochman 12:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. You have mail. Bishonen | talk 12:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC).
- Understatement of the year. Several hundred per day. Jehochman 13:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. You have mail. Bishonen | talk 12:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC).
Question
This is unrelated to the Eckelberry AFD so I'd like your input. Sometime last week I found myself mired in a talk page dispute between two other individuals, I found that one had a plaintext signature (no links to his user or user talk pages). When I realized this was the case, I requested he add a link. He later removed the thread and continued participating in the discussion, still with no link. I've made another request that he modify his signature again. What would the next course of action be should this second request be ignored?—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would just let it slide. He's being non-collegial, but I don't think it is worth pushing the issue while you are already in some sort of disagreement. Jehochman 18:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
One comment about the request for arbitration regarding "Argentine History"
I know I shouldn't be in here and I promise I won't bother you any longer. Some of the Arbitrators "suggested" that I should seek mediation again. I knew it would be useless. So far, I had been the only one who had tried all dispute resolution procedures. Even so, today (I repeat, today) I opened a mediation request. What happened? The obvious: this and this. To MarshalN20, this is all a joke: He's comfortable knowing that he will get away due to the Administrators' lack of interest. Meanwhile, he and his friend Cambalachero will also have fun harassing me on my FAC. And before you wonder: neither are FAC reviewers (see their history log) not have ever edited the article I nominated (or used its talk page). This is not merely "content dispute". We have two editors pushing fringe views, playing with time and with the Community's lack of interest while at the same time they harass the sole editor who are trying to stop them. Perhaps know you have a small idea of all I've been through in the last three years. --Lecen (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- The joke here are all of the accusations of fascism and nazism made by Lecen. Am I supposed to take them seriously?
- Lecen's behavior has been noted as both childish () and exhibiting WP:OWN issues () by independent editors. The whole problem is efficiently summarized in WP:DIVA.
- Furthermore, as I wrote in the Mediation talk page (), the WP:BRD process has not even taken place for this user to take the matter to mediation (much less ArbComm).
- I may not have the 12 FA stars that Lecen constantly brags about, but I am a user with an integrity certified by a handful of barnstars. However, if you agree with Lecen's perspective of things, then perhaps my two GA's (Pisco Sour and Peru national football team), should also be thoroughly hounded for their pro-Nazi bias.
- Heil Pisco!--MarshalN20 | 22:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)