No edit summary |
|||
Line 38:
Further to your recent interventions, please take a look my last post on the Talk page for the [[Jedwabne pogrom]] -[[User:Chumchum7|Chumchum7]] ([[User talk:Chumchum7|talk]]) 09:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
== Triplestop ==
I would prefer not to start opening arbitration enforcement cases over uses of "web brigadiers" regarding myself and others, per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARussavia&action=historysubmit&diff=330184484&oldid=329887556 Triplestop] here. My tolerance for such abuse is getting low again. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> [[User:Vecrumba|<font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА</font>]] ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|talk]] </small> 04:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 04:39, 7 December 2009
|
||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
I will
Chose the words more carefully, although I'd appreciate your advice how to describe Pantherskin's action, i.e. asking others to comment on my message to another user few minutes after it was made. PS. Regarding emailing the committee - I tried that many times; response rate is <10% and I (while I did get several civil and constructive replies) I also got several requests to repost questions on Proposed Talk (which I did and which were not responded to by the committee members) and one not-so-civil message that can be summarized as a critique of my choice to use email to contact the committee, so... sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I regret that you felt this was unacceptable. I will respect your opinion and abide by your request regarding any future involvement there. However, I did not feel that the questions were out of line within the context of the ongoing discussion. It is regrettable that we will probably never get an answer to those questions. If I was on the committee, I would have asked them myself but not in the interrogatory fashion that time and space limitations necessitated my terse manner in doing so at the proceeding. It's been a long and tedious case and I have not followed it in its entirety. Perhaps those questions have been answered at some other place and I missed it. As a specific target of this group, I probably did lose my cool a bit due to what I perceived to be unmitigated hypocrisy being insufficiently unchallenged. Sorry. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder if "You people are insane. Seriously" [1] is an acceptable comment? Offliner (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Baiting and inflammatory comments
I'm not happy with the inflammatory comments and accusations made here. I see this as baiting and am not going to respond. Can you remove this or at least make it stop? Offliner (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I hope you will be monitoring the talk page closely. I have been called a liar three times now, in addition to Radeksz calling me (among others) "insane." Vecrumba has also accused me of creating "attack content" a billion times. None of this is true, but I don't want to respond and defend myself, because this would just create even more irrelevant and inflammatory discussion. It would be better if the accusations were stopped and removed. Offliner (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Offliner, if you hadn't made the edits you did and I didn't have to remove them (you call it "edit warring" on my part, I call it removing "attack content"), and had not chosen to introduce those editing threads as Evidence against me, there would be no need for me to make any observations regarding the nature of the content of your edits. You lobby for appropriate punishments at the proceedings; I simply remind ArbCom of the source of our editorial conflict. I stand by my evidence responding to yours, and by its relevance to the proceedings. Apologies for responding to this off the proceedings page, but I was mentioned specifically. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 00:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
EEML evidence
I moved it to a evidence page, but due to case sprawl I'm not sure if that is where it should be [2]. Please move it to where it belongs otherwise. Could you however leave a link to it on the PD page along with Donald Duck's comments so I can respond to it? Also I'm not sure if the same text should be deleted from the PD page - since you closed it I'm sure you know better on this.radek (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Jedwabne pogrom
Further to your recent interventions, please take a look my last post on the Talk page for the Jedwabne pogrom -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Triplestop
I would prefer not to start opening arbitration enforcement cases over uses of "web brigadiers" regarding myself and others, per Triplestop here. My tolerance for such abuse is getting low again. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 04:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)