Tony, you need to stop following my edits around from one forum to another, and posting your 5¢ worth of personalized and dismissive psychiatric analysis under every comment I make. You need to stop misleading people by attributing to me views that I do not hold, i.e. that I have a "campaign against discretionary sanctions". You need to stop accusing me of bad faith edits. You need to stop making stealth edits to my user pages. You need to stop reverting my edits without leaving an edit summary, especially when there is already a discussion in progress. And I find your repeated on-wiki speculations about whether we have some sort of relationship chilling in view of your continued and intentional off-wiki posting of personally identifying information about me to other Wikipedians. You need to stop all of it. —Neotarf (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's one of the most bizarre and unexplained posts I've ever seen. I can't be bothered taking offence, but most people would. Tony (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- If it's explanation that is needed, I can certainly post diffs, but perhaps it need go no further; sometimes all that is necessary is to bring a situation into greater awareness. —Neotarf (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- You need to butt out of my talk page. Tony (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Fine. The next time I have an issue with you, I don't have to waste time taking it to you first. But just to make clear, here are diffs for the edits I find to be offensive/aggressive/rude:
- Stalkerish ad hominems:  
- Vandalism to my user page: 
- Reverting without an edit summary  after discussion to the contrary  at Risker's talk page.
I don't see any resolvable misunderstandings here, since according to the only conversation we have had on the topic, you indicated you had not read the current discretionary sanction proposal and had not followed the issue. So I guess we are done here.
Have a nice day.
I hope you and Ruby are well.
Neotarf (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- All good edits within policy. Why are you editing if there's a "retired" notice at the top of your page? Tony (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't like it. I want you to stop. —Neotarf (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Stop doing what? Do you mean no one is allowed to take you to task for being disruptive? I reserve that right. Tony (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
You do not have the right to make false accusations against other editors. I am surprised that a Signpost writer would believe this is acceptable. People do expect neutrality and some basic fact-checking from the Signpost. That you are using your position with the Signpost to make a public accusation about a former Signpost contributor without evidence is particularly damaging to my reputation. That you would do this at the same time you are revealing personally identifying information about me in other venues, while mocking my wish for privacy, is unacceptable.
- If you had a legitimate beef against me, you could have presented it long ago.
- If you were actually my "wiki-friend", as you claim--whatever that is--you could have simply picked up the phone and talked to me.
- Your statements could certainly be read as stating or at least implying that your accusations were relying on private information obtained in your status as a Signpost contributor.
- Your statements could also be interpreted as implying that you have some kind of influence over my decisions. In fact, considering the frequency of our back-room disagreements, the opposite is probably the case. If someone wanted to persuade me of something, they would have a better chance approaching me directly.
- That someone could claim to be my "wiki-friend" and have absolutely no clue about why there has been retirement banner posted on my user page for the last year is nothing short of astonishing. Perhaps a review of this thread, that we both participated in, would refresh the memory. And why aren't you snatching notices from the talk pages of these retired editors  or the long-standing wikibreak notice of this editor . This last one, along with mine, used to be perennial targets of a certain now-indeffed user who is also known for email canvassing. Perhaps you should check with your informant to see if they have recently been canvassed.
- I am not opposed to doing favors for people, as long as they are 1) ethical and 2) not harmful to the foundation or the project. But if someone has to use intimidation tactics to influence me to do something, maybe they should be asking themselves what it is about what they want me to do that they cannot ask me directly.
I must ask that your accusations be withdrawn.
—Neotarf (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thing is, I really like you. On-wiki is not really the place to conduct such personal discourse. Tony (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- My point, exactly. But when someone demonstrates they do not wish conversation, repeatedly and after other parties have pointed out past and potential negative consequences, there is no reason not to give them what they want.
- Odd that someone who claims to like me would have gone out of their way to oppose my last attempt to return to editing. The others who left should be free to return as well, if they wish. There has been no misconduct--on our part at least--and the whole thing could have been easily resolved with a low-profile, no-fault motion.
- My parting email to the SP was from the heart--the individuals involved with the project are without exception remarkable, and I found the experience personally rewarding. I certainly thank you for your part in that, and I'm sure our collaboration is something I will look back on with some nostalgia. —Neotarf (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014
ok --Lglukgl (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)(sorry for my error but i'm not englihsh)
- That's no problem at all. Please edit! Tony (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anne Wentworth (prophetess) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- (Wentworth, Freeman). She describes leaving her heavenly husband for God as her Spiritual Bridegroo] (Gillespie).
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the message on my talk page but as about a dozen editors have edited the article since me and that I only added a short description parameter to the persondata template I don;t believe you meant to message me. If I have missed something please let me know. Thanks Waacstats (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've goofed again. Sorry. Tony (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)