| Revision as of 23:14, 1 September 2013 editCount Iblis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,827 edits →ArbCom: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:57, 2 September 2013 edit undoWer900 (talk | contribs)3,921 edits →ArbComNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| Hi Wer900, I suggested on AN/I that you should start an ArbCom case against Beeblebrox and the other editors you have problems with. If you then only discuss the problems you have with these editors in that ArbCom case, you won't be accused of "harassment" anymore. I have also seen less than ideal behavior from Beeblebrox, but I do think one has to present all the evidence at the right venue to prevent things from escalating. The whole point is to do something about the problems, not to create new problems. ] (]) 23:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC) | Hi Wer900, I suggested on AN/I that you should start an ArbCom case against Beeblebrox and the other editors you have problems with. If you then only discuss the problems you have with these editors in that ArbCom case, you won't be accused of "harassment" anymore. I have also seen less than ideal behavior from Beeblebrox, but I do think one has to present all the evidence at the right venue to prevent things from escalating. The whole point is to do something about the problems, not to create new problems. ] (]) 23:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :If that needs to be done, then so be it. I'm not a fan of the Arbitration Committee as it stands now by any stretch of the imagination, but it's the best we've got in the absence of a real court system. All I have observed on the ANI report on me is drama production by Beebs and his supporters. ] • <small>]</small> 16:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:57, 2 September 2013
 | "Down with the Capulets! Down with the Montagues!" –The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, summarizing quite well my views on what should be done about the cabals that actually run the encyclopedia |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard. |
|---|
| 15 January 2025 |
|
Very strong suggestion
I will say this as bluntly as I dare, please take it as a very strong recommendation from a friend... You need to stay the fuck off the AN/I page and you need to stop mentioning Mr. B. in any context whatsoever, effective immediately. As it stands, you are doing an excellent job of self-immolation... Carrite (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Wer900. I have to echo Tim's sentiments. Admittedly the 'NOTHERE' stuff is laughable - I remember your gem Asteroid Retrieval and Utilization as being one of the easiest DYK reviews I've undertaken and I'm very impressed with your work on Galactic Habitable Zone - but please don't give them any more ammunition. You're an excellent contributor and it would be a shame to see you banned. -- Hillbillyholiday 06:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi wer, I read your comment on the ANI where you referred to your apology to me... and in the next breath, said "but the evidence I have on others..... " shows me that you maybe did not learn anything from that unfortunate interaction. The whole place you were coming from with me - the spirit in the doxing correspondence you sent me -- was so dark; the glee there, in your mutual effort to destroy me, was heart-wrenching ugly ... so malign. And at the same time, so self-righteous and certain. Where were you coming from? You should not trust anything that comes from that dark and twisted place. You surely didn't end up there intentionally - you somehow lived and reasoned your way into it. I hope you find a way to live your way out of it. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support. Jytdog, the evidence on the others is not patchy like the "evidence" against you (which I retract in its entirety) but obtainable easily (one of the editors, Runjonrun (talk · contribs), has self-identified as Jon Entine, while Ttguy (talk · contribs)'s identity can be obtained with a quick Google search). That was who I was referencing. It has nothing to you. Please, let us lay that unfortunate chapter to rest. Wer900 • talk 15:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you all for your support. Wer900 • talk 15:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi wer, I read your comment on the ANI where you referred to your apology to me... and in the next breath, said "but the evidence I have on others..... " shows me that you maybe did not learn anything from that unfortunate interaction. The whole place you were coming from with me - the spirit in the doxing correspondence you sent me -- was so dark; the glee there, in your mutual effort to destroy me, was heart-wrenching ugly ... so malign. And at the same time, so self-righteous and certain. Where were you coming from? You should not trust anything that comes from that dark and twisted place. You surely didn't end up there intentionally - you somehow lived and reasoned your way into it. I hope you find a way to live your way out of it. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- I find your comments directed at or about me and other admins grossly inappropriate. Also, FWIW, an edit count pie chart in no way reflects an editor's work - I've logged 42 hours on Misplaced Pages this week, not to mention the amount of off-Wiki work I do here and abroad for the movement. I won't hesitate to say again that there are probably other 'dark and twisted' places where such behaviour is totally acceptable, and where the main practice is to denigrate admins without cause, but it's not here on Misplaced Pages. Your content work here may be extremely valuable, but recent events have demonstrated that if editors act negatively towards Misplaced Pages at the same time, they may need to be subject to sanctions - please think about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Wer900. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
ArbCom
Hi Wer900, I suggested on AN/I that you should start an ArbCom case against Beeblebrox and the other editors you have problems with. If you then only discuss the problems you have with these editors in that ArbCom case, you won't be accused of "harassment" anymore. I have also seen less than ideal behavior from Beeblebrox, but I do think one has to present all the evidence at the right venue to prevent things from escalating. The whole point is to do something about the problems, not to create new problems. Count Iblis (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- If that needs to be done, then so be it. I'm not a fan of the Arbitration Committee as it stands now by any stretch of the imagination, but it's the best we've got in the absence of a real court system. All I have observed on the ANI report on me is drama production by Beebs and his supporters. Wer900 • talk 16:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)