Revision as of 21:37, 6 November 2014 view sourceMasem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,461 edits →On GG← Previous edit |
Revision as of 23:46, 6 November 2014 view source The Devil's Advocate (talk | contribs)19,695 edits →On GGNext edit → |
Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
Your interactions have been fine (and I've been trying to keep my own civility there), but I have an issue with Ryulong (as seriously involved) removing a user's comment under the claim of NOTFORUM, when the user is supplying a link to support something - even if it is clear that we likely cannot do anything directly with that link, the post is clearly not intended as a forum about the topic but a question about improvement. I would think that per the sanctions, unless we're talking a serious and obvious BLP violation, the involved editors should stay out of policing the talk page in this manner, letting you or other uninvolved handle that. --] (]) 21:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
Your interactions have been fine (and I've been trying to keep my own civility there), but I have an issue with Ryulong (as seriously involved) removing a user's comment under the claim of NOTFORUM, when the user is supplying a link to support something - even if it is clear that we likely cannot do anything directly with that link, the post is clearly not intended as a forum about the topic but a question about improvement. I would think that per the sanctions, unless we're talking a serious and obvious BLP violation, the involved editors should stay out of policing the talk page in this manner, letting you or other uninvolved handle that. --] (]) 21:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
:To note, this is second removal of that same bit after the same commentor re-added it after its removal, so obviously that's a problem too, but again this going to back who should and/or shouldn't be policing the talk page with the sanctions in place. --] (]) 21:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
:To note, this is second removal of that same bit after the same commentor re-added it after its removal, so obviously that's a problem too, but again this going to back who should and/or shouldn't be policing the talk page with the sanctions in place. --] (]) 21:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
You only redact Baranof and Ryulong but delete everything I write? Once more you ignore the POV-pushing and other poor behavior from Ryulong and others in favor of going after me. Clearly, you do not even understand the fucking policies you cite. You seriously need to be desysopped. Obviously, all that power has gone to your head. Any "incivility" (read: calling out bad behavior, while criticizing edits) on my part is a result of your inaction and the inaction of various other admins who seem to have no interest in dealing with the blatantly POINTy and POV behavior of these editors, while they continue to run wild and pull of shit.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC) |
Your interactions have been fine (and I've been trying to keep my own civility there), but I have an issue with Ryulong (as seriously involved) removing a user's comment under the claim of NOTFORUM, when the user is supplying a link to support something - even if it is clear that we likely cannot do anything directly with that link, the post is clearly not intended as a forum about the topic but a question about improvement. I would think that per the sanctions, unless we're talking a serious and obvious BLP violation, the involved editors should stay out of policing the talk page in this manner, letting you or other uninvolved handle that. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
You only redact Baranof and Ryulong but delete everything I write? Once more you ignore the POV-pushing and other poor behavior from Ryulong and others in favor of going after me. Clearly, you do not even understand the fucking policies you cite. You seriously need to be desysopped. Obviously, all that power has gone to your head. Any "incivility" (read: calling out bad behavior, while criticizing edits) on my part is a result of your inaction and the inaction of various other admins who seem to have no interest in dealing with the blatantly POINTy and POV behavior of these editors, while they continue to run wild and pull this kind of shit.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)