| Revision as of 21:31, 28 February 2010 view sourceMalleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs)145,401 editsm →Blocked: fix← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:53, 1 March 2010 view source Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,432 edits →Talk page and email access restored: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
| Roux, what the fuck are you thinking? You're on a hair-trigger about perceived or actual slights to yourself (''viz'' your construance of what is "lied ahout me"), but you have been raging about using whatever personal characterizations your emotions see fit (not the same thing as what your reason might say). You have very clearly crossed the line multiple times lately, are you just trying to make a POINT about how editors get treated differently? We've discussed this before privately (and briefly). I'll tell you right now that the way to resolve that sort of problem is <u>not</u> to model worst-behaviour, it is to model best-behaviour. Just think about if you got into an ArbCase, would you want to be someone arguing that you should be pardoned 'cause the other guy was worse or would you want to be the person who everyone can see took a calm and rational approach through the whole dispute? Which way would the decision come more quickly, and which way is more likely to resolve in your favour? You already have my email address, so replying won't be a problem; I just thought this would be better served as a public statement. You make very intelligent and useful contributions when your brain is in gear, we shouldn't have to lose that just because you're often also a dickhead. You have no choice on being intelligent, you do have a choice on being a dickhead. ] (]) 02:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | Roux, what the fuck are you thinking? You're on a hair-trigger about perceived or actual slights to yourself (''viz'' your construance of what is "lied ahout me"), but you have been raging about using whatever personal characterizations your emotions see fit (not the same thing as what your reason might say). You have very clearly crossed the line multiple times lately, are you just trying to make a POINT about how editors get treated differently? We've discussed this before privately (and briefly). I'll tell you right now that the way to resolve that sort of problem is <u>not</u> to model worst-behaviour, it is to model best-behaviour. Just think about if you got into an ArbCase, would you want to be someone arguing that you should be pardoned 'cause the other guy was worse or would you want to be the person who everyone can see took a calm and rational approach through the whole dispute? Which way would the decision come more quickly, and which way is more likely to resolve in your favour? You already have my email address, so replying won't be a problem; I just thought this would be better served as a public statement. You make very intelligent and useful contributions when your brain is in gear, we shouldn't have to lose that just because you're often also a dickhead. You have no choice on being intelligent, you do have a choice on being a dickhead. ] (]) 02:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Talk page and email access restored == | |||
| Hello Roux. I've restored your talk access and email access because time has passed and hopefully you have calmed down since your original block (I was originally going to do this in a week, but I feel now is as good a time as any). I was hoping we could have a chat about your future editing rights here. I am of course willing to unblock you if there is a firm commitment from yourself to be more civil in your interactions with other editors. I would also like a commitment from you to stay away from {{Userlinks|HalfShadow}} and {{Userlinks|A Nobody}}. I don't think those two things are too much to ask. I look forward to your reply. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 19:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:53, 1 March 2010
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BlockedI've blocked you again for incivility. Specifically, for this edit summary. Saying "it only works that way in your rabid inclusionist head" is a severe personal attack. Given that 2 weeks didn't seem to work and this happened 2 days after your block expired, I've increased the length of the block to a further month. You really need to tone down the way you speak to other editors. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 19:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
(Unindent) Forward that email to iain <dot> macdonald <at> wikinewsie <dot> org and I'll give a second opinion. That, I hope, would clear that up. Blood Red Sandman 20:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I recently got shot down at block review on something similar, so I can certainly sympathise with that. Although, my main reason for the harsh block was because I'm more used to another project's stronger policy. But, I'm starting to digress... Blood Red Sandman 21:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Okay, I read the email, which Ryan forwarded to me. Having done that, it seems very obvious to me that not only does this user have no desire to obey policy, he is deliberate in his efforts not to comply. He actually says, in block caps, "Oh noez a personal attack" after he takes one of several swipes at Ryan. This is not an isolated incident; in the end, it is clear that Roux has no desire to abide by this central policy and will not just breach it when it suits him but actively set out to do so. I therefore endorse this block. Blood Red Sandman 23:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
User pagePer your edit summary, I requested that your user page be deleted, so please don't blame the deleter. I hope that after some period of time you relax and consider contributing to non-heated areas either by getting this account unblocked or by the obvious method. Hipocrite (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Random placement of comment...I'm not usually in for grave dancing, but since an entire palace complex has already been erected here: Roux, what the fuck are you thinking? You're on a hair-trigger about perceived or actual slights to yourself (viz your construance of what is "lied ahout me"), but you have been raging about using whatever personal characterizations your emotions see fit (not the same thing as what your reason might say). You have very clearly crossed the line multiple times lately, are you just trying to make a POINT about how editors get treated differently? We've discussed this before privately (and briefly). I'll tell you right now that the way to resolve that sort of problem is not to model worst-behaviour, it is to model best-behaviour. Just think about if you got into an ArbCase, would you want to be someone arguing that you should be pardoned 'cause the other guy was worse or would you want to be the person who everyone can see took a calm and rational approach through the whole dispute? Which way would the decision come more quickly, and which way is more likely to resolve in your favour? You already have my email address, so replying won't be a problem; I just thought this would be better served as a public statement. You make very intelligent and useful contributions when your brain is in gear, we shouldn't have to lose that just because you're often also a dickhead. You have no choice on being intelligent, you do have a choice on being a dickhead. Franamax (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Talk page and email access restoredHello Roux. I've restored your talk access and email access because time has passed and hopefully you have calmed down since your original block (I was originally going to do this in a week, but I feel now is as good a time as any). I was hoping we could have a chat about your future editing rights here. I am of course willing to unblock you if there is a firm commitment from yourself to be more civil in your interactions with other editors. I would also like a commitment from you to stay away from HalfShadow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and A Nobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't think those two things are too much to ask. I look forward to your reply. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lists.wikimedia.org) or directly to the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-l