| Revision as of 00:38, 16 February 2009 editGwen Gale (talk | contribs)47,788 edits →Blocked: cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:40, 16 February 2009 edit undoRyan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,432 edits →Blocked: cNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| BTW, what happened to my old talk page? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">''']''' (])</span> 00:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | BTW, what happened to my old talk page? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">''']''' (])</span> 00:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :: ] (]) 00:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | :: ] (]) 00:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Ok, here goes. The proposal you placed was a statement that gave your opinion about how things should proceed. Whilst that it all good and well, it was a leading statement which was intended to force discussion on the issues at hand. The workshop page is already overly convoluted and should be used for arbitration related proposals. Your statement was suggesting how as parties you could help the situation - that's good, but it's not a proposal which the arbitrators could use so shouldn't be on the workshop. The talk page is less convoluted which makes it a better place to discuss it (not ideal however) - as I suggested, your userspace might be a good place to post your statement for discussion. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 00:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:40, 16 February 2009
Blocked
Per your decision to carry on reverting a clerk on the arbitration pages post the warning I gave above, I've blocked you for 12 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You exceeded your authority in this move. Greg L (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps the key thought here is don't edit war with a clerk. --ROGER DAVIES 00:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- No he hasn't. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps not. But he exercised extraordinarily poor judgement as a clerk and an admin by saying that my seven-step proposal was not a “proposal” and was only discussion material. There are many, many proposals on the workshop that are nothing more than rambling litanies of “so n so should be punished for this and that” and these are “proposals” but what I had was not? Absurd. Further, I asked him on his talk page for an explanation of his justification for that and he remained silent. Greg L (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just to set the record straight, you asked me for justification here. Just 35 minutes later you reverted me whilst I was away from my laptop after already been warned to stop reverting the clerk. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK. You have the power to block editors who defy you. Are you proud? Now… Are you going to offer a rational explanation that withstands logical scrutiny as to how my 1227-word, tight, pithy, too-the-point proposal can not clearly and legitimately be classified as a “proposal” that has every bit as much merit as some of the other garbage there on that workshop? Restore it please. And while you’re at it, please unblock me. I’ll behave. Greg L (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Endorsing the block, particularly in light of my post to the talk page specifically warning editors not to edit war with the Arbitration Committee clerks. Please do not let this happen again. Risker (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW, what happened to my old talk page? Greg L (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, here goes. The proposal you placed was a statement that gave your opinion about how things should proceed. Whilst that it all good and well, it was a leading statement which was intended to force discussion on the issues at hand. The workshop page is already overly convoluted and should be used for arbitration related proposals. Your statement was suggesting how as parties you could help the situation - that's good, but it's not a proposal which the arbitrators could use so shouldn't be on the workshop. The talk page is less convoluted which makes it a better place to discuss it (not ideal however) - as I suggested, your userspace might be a good place to post your statement for discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)