| Revision as of 16:14, 12 December 2014 editDusti (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,412 edits re →Maybe we could back away from the cliff← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:15, 12 December 2014 edit undoJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,284 edits →Maybe we could back away from the cliff: disputed actionNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| ::No, Fram said he was OK with another admin doing it at AN. And you handled this poorly, contributing to the dysfunction. --] (]) 16:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | ::No, Fram said he was OK with another admin doing it at AN. And you handled this poorly, contributing to the dysfunction. --] (]) 16:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::No, Fram said ''if it seems likely that he'll stop redirecting his talk page of course'' - Not an agreement to restore the disputed talk page here, unblock him, and then ask him to discuss it at AN. <span style="font-family: MV Boli;">]]</span> 16:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | :::No, Fram said ''if it seems likely that he'll stop redirecting his talk page of course'' - Not an agreement to restore the disputed talk page here, unblock him, and then ask him to discuss it at AN. <span style="font-family: MV Boli;">]]</span> 16:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::I disagree with your proposed admin action. The dysfunction is that the editor is using his talk page in a way that prevents others from communicating with him. You are welcome to disagree with me, but you should not use sysop access in furtherance of a disagreement. Go to ] and generate a consensus to unblock the editor. That will provide an opportunity perhaps to discover the best way forward. Your judgement is not better than everybody elses'. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:15, 12 December 2014
Not bad faith
Hi. You're not receiving bad faith or summary mistreatment by admins. Several of us have been extra patient in dealing with this problem because we don't want to block you. But if you keep fighting against community standards, that's what's going to happen, regrettably. There's no rush. Why don't you discuss this. If you can make a good case for your position, we might be able to accommodate you somehow, or there might be a compromise. Jehochman 15:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't want to point out the obvious - but Hullaballoo, at the moment, due to the move-war that you've initiated, when you moved User talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz/Archive 2, you moved it to User talk:User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, which was tagged and deleted as an implausible typo. At the moment, you're entire talk page history has been deleted. Continuing to try and redirect your archive to your talk page is, well, futile at the moment. @Fram and Jehochman: can one of you restore the revisions to the archive? Dusti 15:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- The history is at User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 2. Fram (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Derp.... I went off of your edit at User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive2 ;) /me goes back to sleep Dusti 16:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- The history is at User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 2. Fram (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Block notice
Sadly, I have now blocked you for 24 hours for disruptive editing. You technically still can edit this page, and thus reinstate the redirect. This will only lead to the removal of your talk page access as well, so please don't.
You were given plenty of chances to discuss this, but only replied by reinstating your preferred but for others clearly unacceptable situation. This is disruptive editing. Your user talk page is not your property to do with like you please, it is a place for other editors to contact you. Making this deliberately much harder is not something that can be accepted. Fram (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we could back away from the cliff
HW, if I unblock you, and move your talk page back here temporarily as a gesture of respect, can I assume you'll discuss this at WP:AN, and will abide by whatever consensus forms there? That way you could have some control over how it is resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, Flo, you doing that action would be disputed. Please discuss it first. If you are right, I'm sure you are eloquent enough to generate a consensus for your proposal. Jehochman 16:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, Fram said he was OK with another admin doing it at AN. And you handled this poorly, contributing to the dysfunction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, Fram said if it seems likely that he'll stop redirecting his talk page of course - Not an agreement to restore the disputed talk page here, unblock him, and then ask him to discuss it at AN. Dusti 16:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, Fram said he was OK with another admin doing it at AN. And you handled this poorly, contributing to the dysfunction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree with your proposed admin action. The dysfunction is that the editor is using his talk page in a way that prevents others from communicating with him. You are welcome to disagree with me, but you should not use sysop access in furtherance of a disagreement. Go to WP:AN and generate a consensus to unblock the editor. That will provide an opportunity perhaps to discover the best way forward. Your judgement is not better than everybody elses'. Jehochman 16:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)