User talk:Horologium/February 2014

"Scope of the arbitration"
Hello Horologium. Re: AE Evidence Talk, could you please explain what you meant by your remark about being aware of the scope of the arbitration? What words of mine raised that concern? Thank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 21:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your "I wonder whether you are aware" opening is pretty condescending; I've been here for over 7 1/2 years (and have been an admin for almost 6). Since I referenced one of my comments from another arbitration in 2010, it's pretty safe to assume that I wouldn't be wading into an arbitration discussion without having some clue about the scope of the case (it's unlikely that someone who has participated in arbitration before would drop in without reading first). I felt like I was being lectured to as if I were a small and somewhat slow child. I may have over-reacted.  Horologium  (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for SPECIFICO, but I know I acted overly-defensively and I apologize if I came across as rude or disrespectful. I am on edge because, in my view, a lot of false accusations have been against me by proponents of Misesian economics and its associated ideology. Your remarks contributed positively to the discussion, and I am glad that you corrected the few errors you did make. Steeletrap (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you read my words to be expressing condescension. Ironically I was trying to be polite and to avoid saying something too direct, such as "Please don't introduce a straw man example that personal accusations of racist views might be inserted in articles about Austrian economics."  So, conceding what was apparently my poor choice of words, I still am concerned that (your caveat notwithstanding) readers might get the mistaken impression that such a thing was alleged to have occurred in the articles and behavior which are under review at Arbcom.
 * On a different note, it's worth noting that many of the Wiki-notable individuals who are affiliated with the Mises Institute are not necessarily notable in the role of economist. Many of them have written more in the field of social and political theory. I have not been one to stress the "fringe" issue, because I don't think that the "fringe" tag is the most useful way to discuss sources, policy and content.  Nonetheless, it remains the case that relatively few of the Mises Institute Fellows would be considered WP notable as academic economists, or for that matter as political theorists.  I think that, who apparently has little knowledge of mainstream thought in either area, genuinely does not understand that. If these individuals were notable, there would be an abundance of RS references available for their articles.  Having spent a lot of time searching for such sources, I can tell you there are very few.  Anyway, sorry for the mixup on your example and my response.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleting others' comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3
Please don't. All assertions are supported by diffs. I've clicked about half the diffs and all reflected the assertions they support. If some of the assertions are not supported by their diffs, please point them out on the talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship.2FPiotrus_3.E2.80.8E_edit_warring. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. I'm debating whether I'm going to comment in that asinine arbitration request; I cannot believe it hasn't been summarily rejected by more than two arbs. FPaS is getting the pitchforks-and-torches treatment; I'm sure you can sympathize with that (rueful grin). Every single one of those seven people who restored that comment were already on record as opposing Piotrus; two of the four who removed it had not !voted, and one of the four didn't remove it, he simply sub-paged it (which was a better idea than my edit-warring). Oy.  Horologium  (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks. It seemed to be simple common sense that it violated several policies, but the lynch mob was out to get you. I suspect that it is going to be very difficult for you to ever successfully request the bits back, though, if someone (or several someones) are obsessively cataloging every transgression you might make. Your edits seem to be as thoroughly scrutinized as every trash can in Wasilla in 2008. :\ I am still not sure I would have !voted for you or against you, but I would suggest that if you attempt to run for admin again, that you not go on a spree of spreading WikiLove just before running. That turned off a bunch of people, and it made me a bit uncomfortable as well. But don't let the bastards wear you down on your content work; keep plugging away.  Horologium  (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

dewiki username usurpation
Hi! See de:Special:Diff/127604782. Regards, IW 17:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ich danke Ihnen sehr.  Horologium  (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)