User talk:Hipocrite/05/2014

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control closed
The above named arbitration case has closed, and final decisions are now available at the link above. The following remedies were passed:
 * Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, gun control;
 * reminded that further edit-warring as well as incivility will likely result in serious sanctions;
 * ,, and are topic-banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, gun control;
 * reminded that further incivility as well as unnecessary antagonism may result in sanctions;
 * is indefinitely site-banned from the English Language Wikipedia; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed. The twelve-month period of the ban under this remedy is reset if new infringements of the sock puppetry policy occur. In addition, is also indefinitely topic-banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, gun control. The topic ban that North8000 was subject to due to the Tea Party case remains in force.

The topic-ban remedies passed in this case may not be appealed for at least twelve months, and another twelve months must pass for each subsequent appeal.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 20:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
-- benlisquare T•C•E 15:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hagop Terzian
I made a response to your concern raised at the Hagop Terzian DYK. Thanks for bringing that up. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know
FYI: While your recent efforts to participate in the DYK process are appreciated, I am concerned about some of the particulars. As a result, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Due to our recent differences, I will try to minimize my involvement in this discussion but as I am the nominator for one of the nominations you chose to review it may not be possible for me to avoid all involvement. --Allen3 talk 17:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Will you waive the 2 certifier requirement to an RFC regarding your administrative conduct? Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hipocrite lecteur, mon semblable, mon frère
Gee… I just told him the same thing, more starchily, two minutes earlier. Referring, in fact, to your previous post on the same theme. Hipocrite lecteur, mon semblable, mon frère, thank you for making a good point and please don't say "spew", it only makes it easier for the PR guy to construct himself on the internet as the poor polite guy that everybody's so rude to. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC).

Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya
Hello Hipocrite, a moment of your time please. You said we shouldn't run this on the front page. It is claimed that, since you added your opinion, the article is seriously improved. I would like to ask you to revisit the discussion and, at the bottom, (briefly) state if you are still opposed. It is a matter of some contention, to put it mildly. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Fuck off
Hey Hipocrite, it's just that I've seen that Beeblebrox example cited before--it's quite infamous, I suppose. Sorry if I phrased that too strongly. I think we look at "fuck off" and the like in context, and I sincerely hope that admin status is not the only factor--no, I hope that it's not a factor at all. (And now let's see if some Recent change patroller is going to revert this after seeing the heading!) Happy days, Drmies (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions at Traditional Chinese medicine
Hi Hipocrite! Thanks for notifying me, and thanks for taking care of this matter. I have to admit your notification was kind of salutary for me - the disputes at the TCM article have sometimes been quite bitter, and I was beginning to use the revert button too often. I feel that everyone involved in this article has tried to behave a little better since your notifications, and we had a successfully closed DR about the most recent dispute... In the last few days, however, there has been an increase of disruptive taggings and reverts again. So my question is: what is the normal way to ensure that those discretionary sanctions are continuously enforced? Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Who starts discussions
Can you verify for me who is supposed to start talk page discussions? I seem to be the person who almost always starts talk page discussion, regardless of who did the original remove/revert. This is especially aggravating recently with. Lightbreather (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The answer is, and will always be "you," regardless of who asks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * (grins) I sure hope that when editors look at my behavior, they note that I am the one who almost always starts the discussions. Scal, and others I've worked with, just seem to want to WP:REVTALK. In fact, a discussion on Gun politics in the U.S. should have been started by after reverting  edit. Or even by Zeamays.


 * And then there's Scal reverting it to what he calls a "stable" version. Gads, I just realized he's still warring with me there without starting a discussion, so I guess I'll have to start that one, too. (He claims "Further reading" is only for books - sigh.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * So start discussing on the talk page instead of reverting. While it is a true fact that the person who is "better" at reverting will win almost every content dispute on Wikipedia (The high minded consensus ideal requires that both parties want to have a reliable encyclopedia, which is rare, at best. Typically, one party wants an encyclopedia, and the other wants whatever truth he believes to be true), the first step towards being better at reverting is making it look like the other person is the serial reverter and that you are the calm, discussing voice of reason and maturity. Then, after they revert a bunch, you drop some massive official request showing all of the evil that your counterparty engaged in, and have them banned. You are playing the game wrong by falling to their level - I'm not great at the game either, but you either do it the right way, or you lose. Unless you take it to talk, now, you'll lose, and you'll both get banned/restricted, in which case whichever of you is here to protect the encyclopedia will be gone and the other will sockpuppet. Hipocrite (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather brilliantly put... :) I tried giving LB some sincere and informed advice too.
 * Scal, I think his advice is meant for you, too. Quit fluffing yourself up. Lightbreather (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My advice is meant for everyone. Whoever follows it best will likley "win" whatever content dispute it is used in over time. Hipocrite (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making that clear. And (in my case, at least) it was asked-for advice. Like most people, how I receive unasked-for "advice" depends on who's giving it, how he gives it, and when and where he gives it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)