User talk:Stifle

• Older archives
• Archive: January 2011
• Archive: February 2011
• Archive: March 2011
• Archive: April 2011
• Archive: May 2011
• Archive:June to December 2011

Replies

• Please reply to me here if possible.
• If your message is about an AFD or other discussion that you want me to (re)contribute to, I will generally not reply other than by checking the page and adding a comment.
• I will normally reply here and copy my reply to your talk page, but may sometimes use {{talkback}} or, occasionally, reply here only.
• Please don't leave your email address. My email address is user.stiflegmail.com and you can contact me there if you have a request that needs to be answered privately. However, if you email me with a request that is not private, I will respond on your talk page.
  • Exception: if you are requesting the text of a deleted article, then make sure your preferences include a valid, confirmed email address, as I will email the article to you at that address (only).

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

• Interview: The Gardner interview

• News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III

• Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future

• Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

• Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold

• News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang

• In the news: Wikipedia ends annual fundraising drive; Monmouthpedia launches

• WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz

• Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3

• Technology report: December in more detail; and why the MediaWiki codebase was "slushed" this week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

• Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18

• Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?

• News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer

• Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

• Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA#Editors_reminded

Hi, I've never come across your name at AE, certainly not in the context of an ARBPIA-related report. Are you familiar with WP:ARBPIA#Editors_reminded? I could of course be wrong, but it sounds as though you may not have read the Remedy formulated there. It specifically enjoins editors to assume good faith, write with a neutral point of view, remain civil, and avoid personal attacks. I don't see how any of the comments Unomi directed at me can possible not be considered blatant breaches of what #Editors_reminded considers appropriate behavior. Can you elaborate, here or at AE, just how you feel Unomi's attacks are consistent with #Editors_reminded?—Biosketch (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because you open an SPI case, which only merit is its questionable entertainment value, doesn't mean that WP:SPI automatically classifies as ARBPIA territory. I would suggest that you reconsider the words you have chosen on AE, I can assure you that I find nothing "cunning" about casting aspersions of that nature. Please find somewhere else to indulge in your victimization fantasies. That you would file an SPI based on use of exclamation marks and smileys ( which happen to exhibit markedly different styles ) is disturbing and sad, if you weren't doing such a great job of displaying the frailty of your connection to reality I might have considered taking formal action against you for employing such disruptive attempts at gaming the system. un☯mi 12:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the message I was trying to convey to User:Stifle, the validity of which your comment above has helped establish, is that your approach to editors with whom you have disagreements is hostile and aggressive and altogether inconsistent with the spirit of this project. There'd be no reason for you to take the SPI as personally as you have if you were as convinced of its futility as you claim you are. The vindictive anti-Zionist outbursts you attacked me with mean you lack the capacity to assume good faith, write with a neutral point of view, remain civil, and avoid personal attacks. Had your attacks been unrelated to the I/P conflict, I'd probably have ignored them as meaningless; but your sinister association of me with the negative stereotypes you believe to apply to Zionists both makes the attacks pertinent to ARBPIA and, in my opinion, makes them sanctionable.—Biosketch (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have sanctioned users under ARBPIA, which you would have noticed if you searched WP:ARBPIA for my name. I expressed my opinion at WP:AE that the comments reach the level of a breach of the letter of the ruling, but not one that would occasion a sanction greater than an admonishment. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll acknowledge that, I don't really have the desire to spend much further time on this, but should someone take Biosketch to task for the rather appalling misrepresentation of what I have written and offensive, to put it lightly, attribution of beliefs to me, then I would find it welcome. un☯mi 14:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Unomi, if you specify which beliefs I've attributed to you unfairly, I'll be more than happy to know you dissociate yourself from them and to withdraw the attribution of them to you. What I don't understand is your resistance to retracting the one comment I objected to on your Talk page, which was the catalyst for all this.—Biosketch (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take the time to re-read it. I wrote that within the "Pro-Zionist Brigade" ( a pretty clear indicator of sardonic humor ) there could be found a high degree of self-deception. I don't see why I should retract it WHEN YOU SO VERY CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY ARE MAKING THAT VERY CASE FOR ME, YOU NUTJOB. un☯mi 14:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)