User talk:Sephiroth storm/Archives/2009/December

Warning

Please explain your warning on my talk page. Polmalo (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Talk:Track_Down#Article_name.3F Debresser (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your participation in the ANI thread about PCHS-NJROTC's actions

Sephiroth storm, I'm not sure why you have inserted yourself into the discussion since you earlier admitted that you had not read all of it, but your participation there isn't helpful. PCHS-NJROTC still seems unable to grasp that they did anything wrong. No admin seems willing to make a clear statement that unilateral bans of users are unacceptable. This has absolutely nothing to do with punishment or compromise or outing or meatpuppetry or any of the other red herrings that are being proffered instead of discussing the real issue. I'm trying to get this resolved, but comments like these are really just adding noise. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we have found the core of the problems here. As I noted in the thread, the user has in fact acknowledged that their edits were controversial, and has pledged to stop such edits in the future, that is my point, and you appear to ignore this. A user doesn't need to state that their edits were "wrong", only that they see that they have been disruptive and stop that activity.

However, you stated that you want to resolve the issue of unilateral bans, which was discussed in the thread. ANI is not the appropriate forum for this, you should look at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. The reason I brought up the other incidents, is because other users were bringing them up, because again, you should have made a separate discussion at BLOCK, and then have had a separate discussion about NJROTC's issues. When you revived his ANI, you said you wanted a resolution, but users(including myself) assumed you wanted a resolution of the NJROTC issue, that discussion has continued. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, after looking at the discussion on your talk page, I believe you can see where i'm coming from. As SirFozzie stated, "yes, he got it wrong. However, he apologized, promised not to do it again" you then stated: "It may be helpful if you could make at least a brief statement (at ANI, not here) which clearly says that this action was wrong" I have to assume by this action you meant JROTC's actions. Again, you are ignoring one method of resolution(the user moving on), for a more official for of resolution(sounds like you are suggesting a ban from vandal fighting). I hope you can see how this looks.

I can't understand the purpose of your idiosyncratic indentation so I'll answer everything here. PCHS-NJROTC did not express anything that would lead me to believe he understood why what they did was wrong. To the contrary, they have dissembled from the beginning of the discussion and seemed only to want to avoid the scrutiny. This behaviour is one of the reasons why I suggested it would be wise to ban them from vandal-fighting activities such as contacting ISPs. I think that anyone who reads through the entire thread will agree that there may be some queions about PCHS-NJROTC's judgment and maturity. As for the statement from an admin, I not asking for anyone to change policy, simply to confirm it so that others don't follow the same path as PCHS-NJROTC. ANI is appropriate for that action. You may disagree about any or all of this -- and that's fine -- but that thread will get settled much faster if people don't introduce side issues. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, there is no requirement for the user to "understand" or agree that their action was wrong. Only that he stop the disruptive activity. As for your continuing remarks about me not reading the entire thread, that is unnecessary. Again, I agree that his judgment is flawed, I will not result to personal attacks by commenting on his maturity. While it is correct that you CAN use the ANI forum for your intent, I am simply suggesting that the more appropriate place for it is the talk page listed above. As it is, you are still getting nowhere on your issue, and they are still discussing NJROTC's issues. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You are reading insults where none were intended. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It may not have been intended, but it is best to avoid such words in the first place.

I wanted to avoid scrutiny because it's a burden for me to have to always be checking an AN/I thread that, in my opinion, was an overreaction. In short, I consider the whole deal a "waste of my time," especially when Wikipedia is not the only thing I have to worry about in life. I removed everything as a settlement for a reason, that reason being that I personally feel an arguement over whether a blatant troll was banned or just blocked (every account even thought to be a sock of the user would have been blocked for the user's actions anyway), or whether one makes mistakes (everyone does), to be pointless. No don't recall so much as ever being questioned about my handling of the LBHSC case until DC came along; as a matter of fact, I was often praised for my work in the situation. Now it seems that certain people are picking apart every error and minor violation of policy related to my involvement, so of course it's going to be a hard pill to swallow when actions that I felt were considered by others to be some of my best crumple to faults that are subject of a bitter investigation. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)