User talk:Tennis expert

Warning

Publish private emails without permission again like you did at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions and you'll find yourself blocked, for a very considerable period of time. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How typical of your arrogance. Based on which Wikipedia policy would this block occur? 08:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Tennis expert (talk)

It would occur based on this principle from the Arbitration Committee. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As a former arbitration clerk, I would have thought you were aware that past arbitration decisions are of no precedential value. Try again. Cite the policy if you can. Tennis expert (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that's good enough. The Arbitration Committee have said that emails shouldn't be published without permission from the sender (there's also a copyright issue involved as the person that sent the email still holds the copyright) so I'm more than happy to act on the basis of that. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Given your response, you clearly know virtually nothing about copyright law or about Wikipedia arbitration. But lack of knowledge certainly hasn't stopped you from acting rashly in the past. Tennis expert (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In the recent second Macedonia case, to which I was a party, a user was admonished for having posted an email from another user. That demonstrates pretty clearly that the committee is still actively enforcing this rule, whether you agree with it or not, and whether it's clearly written as policy or not (incidentally, the best wording I've found is here). I'm afraid your assertion that Ryan's been rash is contradicted by the facts. It's really just basic netiquette not to post private correspondence without permission, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• TE, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Admins and ‘crats are free to exercise common sense when confronted with wikilawyering. Your responses here simply amount to “I employed a well-known way to be mean that hasn’t been specifically proscribed on Wikipedia so I’m free to do so with impunity.” No you’re not.

  A wise scholar of religion was once asked what *Universal Truths* the world’s various religions had in common. He responded “They all teach ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’; all the rest is window dressing.” WP:Don’t be a dick means just that: don’t be a dick. ‘Being nice to other people and not screwing them over to give oneself an advantage’ is a principle known to all cultures all over the world. I’m confident that this principle is not unfamiliar to you; it’s simply a matter of whether you chose to abide by it and whether you believe in the principle of social reciprocity.

  I took a quick look at Vandenberg’s e-mail and anyone with the common sense God gave a goose would realize it was a personal communication given to you in confidence. He wouldn’t want such a communication shared with the world any more than you would want one of your private communications shared with the world. That you would violate a confidence simply to leverage an advantage on some arcane wikilaywering issue in the virtual world of Wikipedia was mean spirited. Wikipedia does not need to think of all 100,001 ways that Wikipedians can be harmful, disruptive, or mean to others and proscribe each and every one individually. Greg L (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:

(1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";

(2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";

(3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;

(4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 04:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Spoke too soon

I guess my 'welcome back' message to you was premature! Ohconfucius (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you don't have to write another one. I've said it before, so it shouldn't come as any surprise that recent events have only confirmed my belief that TE is simply incapable of working in a collaborative environment. He is an absolute stickler for the rules when it comes to commenting on other editors' behaviour, however flaunting those rules is seen as justifiable for his own activities (as we have all seen before; e.g. search for "As usual with TE's diffs" at this location, and read the five following paragraphs).  HWV258  05:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)