Misplaced Pages

User talk:Xeno: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:34, 2 June 2011 editDiannaa (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators349,760 edits →ok: more← Previous edit Revision as of 06:59, 2 June 2011 edit undo110.139.190.67 (talk) →ok: +moarNext edit →
Line 28: Line 28:
:::::::: You have to see it in the light of the chronologically previous comment {{diff2|415705845}}: ''"I'm certainly not going to support lifting a restriction that is being flaunted repeatedly"'', and the utter hubris of ''"Frankly, if not for the defiance in creating these additional accounts, I'd have seriously considered lifting all of the remaining sanctions"'' in the comment above that one. :::::::: You have to see it in the light of the chronologically previous comment {{diff2|415705845}}: ''"I'm certainly not going to support lifting a restriction that is being flaunted repeatedly"'', and the utter hubris of ''"Frankly, if not for the defiance in creating these additional accounts, I'd have seriously considered lifting all of the remaining sanctions"'' in the comment above that one.
:::::::: You are right though, that those two edits mark the sharp downturn in events, quite contrary to Jack's very reasonable expectations. There he was, like a prisoner tantalised with a promise of freedom, when the gates were slammed shut in his face. I'm not surprised by his response in the circumstances, and you really shouldn't be either. --] (]) 23:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC) :::::::: You are right though, that those two edits mark the sharp downturn in events, quite contrary to Jack's very reasonable expectations. There he was, like a prisoner tantalised with a promise of freedom, when the gates were slammed shut in his face. I'm not surprised by his response in the circumstances, and you really shouldn't be either. --] (]) 23:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::My personal favourite: "worthy of a smackdown". Epic. What do we have to do to be worthy of a smackdown? At what point is Coren going to smack me down? Does he have the right? Does anyone? The sheer pomposity of it leaves me speechless. Jack scuttled his accunts with ''one hour'' of this post. Coincidence? I think not --] <sup>(])</sup> 03:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC) :::::::::My personal favourite: "worthy of a smackdown". Epic. What do we have to do to be worthy of a smackdown? At what point is Coren going to smack me down? Does he have the right? Does anyone? The sheer pomposity of it leaves me speechless. Jack scuttled his accounts with ''one hour'' of this post. Coincidence? I think not --] <sup>(])</sup> 03:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Things went south with Coren's comments, but it really started with Risker's {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment|415193070|415172770|comment}}. She previously voted to "commend for a clean return" and the bit (2.) re my "transitioning from a formal mentorship to '''unrestricted editing'''" (my bold;). Now she's after permanent restriction. As I {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|428014441&oldid=427899868|said}}, I see Risker as involved, and her continued participation makes the entire process illegitimate. Want me to go into detail in public? I can say some of it. Somewhere it says to bring recusal request up on an arb's talk page, but hers was semi'd and I was on only an IP at the time. She's just un-semi'd it, but I see that as bait to reply to Doc9871's continued dogging of me.

Also, technically I didn't create ]; you (xeno) did when you for me. That was an entirely legitimate request for anti-impersonation reasons and because Gimmetoo was rudely referring to me simple as "Merridew". He's another that's been dogging me for a year, and Risker waded in there, too. The net effect of these years of restriction is that anything goes when it comes to me; truth is I've received a hundred times as much as harassment and bad faith as I've ever been accused of. And it's all due to the various ACs having failed to ever resolve anything; they just prolong things. This failure, repeated in many cases, is *why* this project has gone toxic. The committee is craven before the mob of anyones and feeds their taste for ].

Motion 5 is all fucked-up. Multiple arbs are saying they prefer sink-or-swim, but have not voted for it. My take-away is that unexpressed, back-room shite is driving that. The fix is in; Jack will be fucked forever. So, I'm left with the option of illustrating this. I've not been doing so in a disruptive manner, just in a really embarrassing manner (and constructive re articles).

] (]) 06:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:59, 2 June 2011

userpage | talk | dashboard | misc

Notes:

  • I will usually reply where original comments occurred and add notifications if thought necessary.
  • You may email me regarding anything sensitive, private, or confidential.
  • I work for or provide services to the Wikimedia Foundation, but this is my personal account. Edits, statements, or other contributions made from this account are my own, and may not reflect the views of the Foundation.
  • Feel free to post a message or ask a question. Please be sure to ] appropriate subjects. Thanks for visiting!
click here to leave a new message...

Archives

2008 /02 /03 /04 /05 /06 /07 /08 /09 /10 /11 /12 2009 /01/02 /03/04 /05 /06 /07 /08 /09 /10 /11/12 2010 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2011 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2012–2013 A1 2014 A2 2015 A3 2016–2019 A4
2020– A5


This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Warning! This user functions at a sub-optimal level before their morning coffee.

ok

not the bar owner, but all of the other three. 110.139.190.67 (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

cryptic message is cryptic! –xeno 14:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
You know what the term for a group of vultures is? a committee. 110.139.190.67 (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh! I get it now. The complete lack of surprise... –xeno 14:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I've not been surprised since February. 110.139.190.67 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
In a certain sense, you are fortifying the walls from within. –xeno 14:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been quite clear that I will not abide by restrictions that should have been lifted ages ago. If the committee wants to unleash the thugs to beat a few IPs to a bloody pulp over a joke account, and have a fair number of reasonable editors be appalled by it, I'm happy to oblige. 'Jack' was always a mirror to the community, anyway. Gotta go, 110.139.190.67 (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this whole thing took a sharp downhill with this edit. Still don't understand that one. –xeno 15:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
You have to see it in the light of the chronologically previous comment : "I'm certainly not going to support lifting a restriction that is being flaunted repeatedly", and the utter hubris of "Frankly, if not for the defiance in creating these additional accounts, I'd have seriously considered lifting all of the remaining sanctions" in the comment above that one.
You are right though, that those two edits mark the sharp downturn in events, quite contrary to Jack's very reasonable expectations. There he was, like a prisoner tantalised with a promise of freedom, when the gates were slammed shut in his face. I'm not surprised by his response in the circumstances, and you really shouldn't be either. --RexxS (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
My personal favourite: "worthy of a smackdown". Epic. What do we have to do to be worthy of a smackdown? At what point is Coren going to smack me down? Does he have the right? Does anyone? The sheer pomposity of it leaves me speechless. Jack scuttled his accounts with one hour of this post. Coincidence? I think not --Diannaa 03:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Things went south with Coren's comments, but it really started with Risker's comment. She previously voted to "commend for a clean return" and the bit (2.) re my "transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing" (my bold;). Now she's after permanent restriction. As I , I see Risker as involved, and her continued participation makes the entire process illegitimate. Want me to go into detail in public? I can say some of it. Somewhere it says to bring recusal request up on an arb's talk page, but hers was semi'd and I was on only an IP at the time. She's just un-semi'd it, but I see that as bait to reply to Doc9871's continued dogging of me.

Also, technically I didn't create user:Merridew; you (xeno) did when you usurped it for me. That was an entirely legitimate request for anti-impersonation reasons and because Gimmetoo was rudely referring to me simple as "Merridew". He's another that's been dogging me for a year, and Risker waded in there, too. The net effect of these years of restriction is that anything goes when it comes to me; truth is I've received a hundred times as much as harassment and bad faith as I've ever been accused of. And it's all due to the various ACs having failed to ever resolve anything; they just prolong things. This failure, repeated in many cases, is *why* this project has gone toxic. The committee is craven before the mob of anyones and feeds their taste for blood.

Motion 5 is all fucked-up. Multiple arbs are saying they prefer sink-or-swim, but have not voted for it. My take-away is that unexpressed, back-room shite is driving that. The fix is in; Jack will be fucked forever. So, I'm left with the option of illustrating this. I've not been doing so in a disruptive manner, just in a really embarrassing manner (and constructive re articles).

110.139.190.67 (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)