| Revision as of 01:55, 12 January 2006 editLocke Cole (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,922 edits →Consider how this looks to the newbies← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:35, 12 January 2006 edit undoRbj (talk | contribs)3,805 edits →Consider how this looks to the newbiesNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| :::As an aside, you'll need to show me where I say, without doubt, that you used a sock. With regard to Phroziac being "left alone", clearly she did not feel that way. What Karmafist did I would not classify as harassment in the least: if indeed you were leaving her alone, then his notice on your talk page required no action on your part. Instead, here we are because of your insistance that it was "abusive". —] • ] • ] 01:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | :::As an aside, you'll need to show me where I say, without doubt, that you used a sock. With regard to Phroziac being "left alone", clearly she did not feel that way. What Karmafist did I would not classify as harassment in the least: if indeed you were leaving her alone, then his notice on your talk page required no action on your part. Instead, here we are because of your insistance that it was "abusive". —] • ] • ] 01:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::: well Phroziac can say that she's the Queen of England if she wants, but if you act on that (particularly to someone else detriment) you need to check it out. | |||
| :::: , , and i harrass her where? no more communication of any kind at all. 3 hours later Karma his harrassment.''' | |||
| :::: you posit: "if indeed you were leaving her alone". what evidence do you have that i was not. and at and before my last communication with Phoziac, what words did i say that where in any way harrassment? you see, these facts are pesky little things, Brownoser. they don't go away. '''and''' they are well documented. (unless your judgement is that firmly disagreeing with Phroziac's non-justification of "block first, ask questions later" on her talk page is, in and of itself, ''harrassment''. if you apply that standard to Karmafist, he would simply burst into flames.) | |||
| :::: based on the facts, you simply cannot win this argument (no matter how you try to twist it). but if your position is really "might makes right", i lose because Phroziac and Karmafist have wiki-power and i do not. ] 02:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| FYI, the way I got here is that I was curious about Rbj's slow response to come out for round 4 of a 15 rounder. I figured he had more important things taking up his time. I thought they might be interesting to me as well. But my subsequent investigation led me to this total waste of time. I don't claim to know or care about all the issues being debated. I have better ways to spend my time. But what I did read gave me the general impression that I have already expressed. Whether it is right or wrong is not the point at all. The point is that it's a real downer to find you all behaving this way. And the burden of coolheadedness falls heavier on the admins than on the users. So it makes[REDACTED] mgmt look bad. Thought you'd like to know. You're welcome. --] 01:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | FYI, the way I got here is that I was curious about Rbj's slow response to come out for round 4 of a 15 rounder. I figured he had more important things taking up his time. I thought they might be interesting to me as well. But my subsequent investigation led me to this total waste of time. I don't claim to know or care about all the issues being debated. I have better ways to spend my time. But what I did read gave me the general impression that I have already expressed. Whether it is right or wrong is not the point at all. The point is that it's a real downer to find you all behaving this way. And the burden of coolheadedness falls heavier on the admins than on the users. So it makes[REDACTED] mgmt look bad. Thought you'd like to know. You're welcome. --] 01:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:35, 12 January 2006
Comment on my block
I'd like to point out that users can edit their usertalk pages while blocked. Blocking Rchamberlain would have done nothing. --Phroziac . o º 20:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- and, as i've told you multiple times, that's not the point. blocking me and not blocking Rchamberlain for an "edit war" showed a clear favoritism for Rchamberlain. the fact that after being blocked, he and i could edit our own user pages is simply non sequitur. and, of course, the inexcusable thing was that you didn't bother to inquire with me about what was going on before acting. there is no excuse for that. you simply acted as Rchamberlain's agent at my detriment. BTW, you should probably put this in the main page, but i'll leave it to you. r b-j 01:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- You were edit warring in his user space, of course you were the only one blocked. Things tend to favor someone working in their own space and minding themselves. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- but he wasn't just working his own space and he wasn't just minding himself. it's reasonable to expect more competent finding of fact than demonstrated here. r b-j 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- On the page you were revert warring on, his talk page, he was in his own space. If he chooses to blank his talk page, that's his perogative (the page history is still available, and if you need to provide something as evidence later, use diffs). Edit warring on another users talk page is absolutely and totally unacceptable. If the user reverts you, leave it alone. If something about their behavior is still unacceptable later (as in, they continue to do something you believe is wrong on an article), seek out dispute resolution (WP:3O, WP:RFC, etc). But harassing people is not how you resolve things. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- if you had read the RfAr or my response for the RfC here, you would have read that this was where i was going when i was inappropriately (most certainly prematurely) blocked. since i was not vandalizing his page nor was i personally attacking him (even though i was personally attacked by him ), there is plenty of unacceptable going around. in addition, blanking a message left by someone else on your talk page is hostile Talk_page#Etiquette - Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?. but the least acceptable is abuse of authority by Phroziac measured in teaspoonfuls and by Karmafist measured in cubic meters. what this is primarily about is my bringing to WP attention this abuse of authority and then the childish abusive retaliation by those whose authority to abuse was so publically questioned. i am not backing down from that. and if you take the time to examine and fix the timing errors in your timeline (so you know what event happened before what other event) the fact of this abuse of authority is apparent. you get your timeline right and you will see a 3 hour gap, where i let Phroziac have the last word on this, where no one can accurately accuse me of any incivility, yet then Karmafist, at Phroziac's behest begins this harrassment that prompted me to the RfAr against them both (but primarily Karmafist since he is clearly the nastiest abuser of authority). these facts will not go away. r b-j 01:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- On the page you were revert warring on, his talk page, he was in his own space. If he chooses to blank his talk page, that's his perogative (the page history is still available, and if you need to provide something as evidence later, use diffs). Edit warring on another users talk page is absolutely and totally unacceptable. If the user reverts you, leave it alone. If something about their behavior is still unacceptable later (as in, they continue to do something you believe is wrong on an article), seek out dispute resolution (WP:3O, WP:RFC, etc). But harassing people is not how you resolve things. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- but he wasn't just working his own space and he wasn't just minding himself. it's reasonable to expect more competent finding of fact than demonstrated here. r b-j 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- You were edit warring in his user space, of course you were the only one blocked. Things tend to favor someone working in their own space and minding themselves. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Consider how this looks to the newbies
In case it matters, I am shocked and very disappointed at I what I am seeing here. It certainly dampens my enthusiasm for contributing to an outwardly noble enterprise, which apparently might be just a facade for some peoples' immature power trips. Why does[REDACTED] harbor admins who would lower themselves to the level of this dispute? I understand how things can escalate out of control, like road rage, but you don't expect road rage from the police. I blame those who protect the out-of-control cop more than the cop himself.
I have no idea why Rbj continues to want to contribute. I would have bailed long ago. I am considering bailing even now. If I get blocked for speaking out, that would only confirm my suspicions, and you would be doing me a favor.
--Bob K 21:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Have you read my "inside view" at all? I'm curious how you reconcile Rbj's actions leading up to this complaint, as well as his attempt at stacking the vote here, against the supposed misbehavior of Karmafist simply telling Rbj to leave Phroziac alone and stop harassing her (something which, if Rbj had intended to stop said harassment, should have been no-big-deal)? Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ahhh, I see, you're just another attempt at stacking the vote. Nevermind my earlier question. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- hey Brownose: I left Phroziac alone. Didn't you check that out? And I got harrassed by Karmafist anyway. and maybe, just maybe, your "Inside view" is less than persuasive. (oh, and BobK is no shill, he and i are gonna lock horns about whether or not the DFT inherently periodically extends its data, but there are bigger fish to fry over there. and although i responded to BobK, he came here with no prompting from me.) and you still have never proven your defamatory charge that i ever used a sock. (and you tried to get me to fall for that "unbiased" observer bit. ha-ha.r b-j 01:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- And again with the personal attacks. Did you not read WP:NPA as I requested earlier? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- As an aside, you'll need to show me where I say, without doubt, that you used a sock. With regard to Phroziac being "left alone", clearly she did not feel that way. What Karmafist did I would not classify as harassment in the least: if indeed you were leaving her alone, then his notice on your talk page required no action on your part. Instead, here we are because of your insistance that it was "abusive". —Locke Cole • t • c 01:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- well Phroziac can say that she's the Queen of England if she wants, but if you act on that (particularly to someone else detriment) you need to check it out.
- This is the last thing i said to her, she responds with this, and i harrass her where? no more communication of any kind at all. 3 hours later Karma begins his harrassment.
- you posit: "if indeed you were leaving her alone". what evidence do you have that i was not. and at and before my last communication with Phoziac, what words did i say that where in any way harrassment? you see, these facts are pesky little things, Brownoser. they don't go away. and they are well documented. (unless your judgement is that firmly disagreeing with Phroziac's non-justification of "block first, ask questions later" on her talk page is, in and of itself, harrassment. if you apply that standard to Karmafist, he would simply burst into flames.)
- based on the facts, you simply cannot win this argument (no matter how you try to twist it). but if your position is really "might makes right", i lose because Phroziac and Karmafist have wiki-power and i do not. r b-j 02:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
FYI, the way I got here is that I was curious about Rbj's slow response to come out for round 4 of a 15 rounder. I figured he had more important things taking up his time. I thought they might be interesting to me as well. But my subsequent investigation led me to this total waste of time. I don't claim to know or care about all the issues being debated. I have better ways to spend my time. But what I did read gave me the general impression that I have already expressed. Whether it is right or wrong is not the point at all. The point is that it's a real downer to find you all behaving this way. And the burden of coolheadedness falls heavier on the admins than on the users. So it makes[REDACTED] mgmt look bad. Thought you'd like to know. You're welcome. --Bob K 01:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)