Jump to content

User talk:Nishidani

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.44.33.122 (talk) at 19:16, 1 April 2009 (You'll be missed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You'll be missed

We'll miss your presence and work here on the 'pedia, Nishidani. For what its worth, which isn't much, I think the block was a serious overreaction - 1 week for that comment, with no history of blocks/warnings for the behavior cited in the block reason? Unfortunate that excessively punitive reactions, unevenly applied, take away some of our best editors but leave us with many of lesser worth. Avruch T 16:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All Nishidani needs to do is back down and request unblock. Look at the diff I cited. They need to recognize this sort of participation is completely inappropriate and unhelpful. They need to renounce incitement and drama mongering as editorial tactics. Jehochman Talk 16:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with Meatball:Goodbye, but its singularly unhelpful to note it in a post here. I'm not sure why he needs to 'back down' - this isn't a dominance game, or a test of wills, nor does he need to learn his place. Perhaps the wording of his post was ill-advised, particularly for such a high profile place. But let's review:
  • He's got a history of similar exchanges with the same user, with intent understood
  • He does not have a history of being blocked or warned for personal attacks, indeed he edits in some of the most contentious areas of Wikipedia with noteworthy aplomb
  • The comment is not the sort that even regularly draws warnings, let alone warning free blocks
  • I've been regularly following Nishidani's work around the wiki for quite some time, and I have never seem him use "incitement and dramamongering" as an editorial tactic. Absolutely the opposite, in fact - he overwhelms people with erudition, and far more often draws criticism for long comments with obscure references than for anything else.
Given that, a week-long block truly seems unnecessarily punitive. I usually respect your judgment, Jehochman, and don't recall having criticised it in the past even when I might quibble. This particular time, though, I think you are in error. Avruch T 17:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you asked others not to add anything here Nishidani, but, well I'm ignoring that. I must have missed the moment when we passed into an alternative universe where admins here can unilaterally impose no-warning, no-precedent bans of a week out of the blue on other editors simply for saying something ironic or not entirely serious on a talk page or board. And then have the nerve to come to that person's talk page, apparently in all seriousness, to demand that the editor in question "back down" or "renounce" some alleged failing before the admin will acknowledge any error; and at the same time posting a sarcastic parting shot of their own in the form of a piss-taking link in the edit summary. Absolutely astonishing. If you felt the original post on WP:ANI was inappropriate or too lengthy and off-topic, you could simply have removed it and notified Nishidani that you had done that. Now that would have solved any alleged problem without any "drama-mongering". --Nickhh (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an error, then the subject should post an unblock request, and a discussion can occur at WP:ANI if that proves unsatisfactory. What needs to stop is the drama mongering by the subject and everybody else. This is a simple matter to resolve. I'd unblock Nishidani myself if they posted an unblock request that said something to the effect of, "yeah, my comment at ANI was over the top and I now understand that it was unhelpful and won't do it again." You folks need to stop fighting and try to get along. Jehochman Talk 18:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, should an AN/I thread about this be necessary? That, more than anything else that has happened so far, would be maximum drama. Can't you unblock, and revise the spent block-time as a warning given no history of blocks for this reason and no warning? Avruch T 18:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that creates more drama, and also presupposes that people who've been hit by bad blocks have to repent or recant before anything is done about it. And the request that we "stop fighting and try to get along" seems a little misconceived. No one's fighting anyone here - Nishidani was giving support to Ashley at the original WP:ANI thread; myself, Avruch, John Carter and others have been backing Nishidani. In fact it seems everyone's getting along just fine and doing their best to be collegiate - with one exception. --Nickhh (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask Jechoman who Nishidani personally attacked and harassed, per Jechoman's blog log notice? No one. The person to whom Nishidani directed his remarks is currently outraged at this block. You had a reading comprehension failure, probably prompted by a sudden outbreak of creative and original writing on Wikipedia, then rather than undo your error when Nishdani angrily pointed it out, simply changed your block reason. Now you want Nishidani to "back down" based on your new judgment call that the comment he blocked for was "unhelpful" to the tune of a one-week block! Really, Jechoman, there is no support for this assessment and it is goading to suggest that Nishidani must now jump through hoops of your construction. Unblock. 86.44.33.122 (talk)
Login with your main account, please. The comment by Nishidani was highly disruptive, and a gross violation of decorum. The editors in a recurring, severe dispute such as WP:ARBPIA need to show restraint. This sort of drama mongering will not be permitted to continue. Jehochman Talk 19:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never registered for an account here, so I guess this is my "main account". I don't see any evidence that the comment by Nishidani was highly disruptive, and a gross violation of decorum. It's obvious that it was not intended to, and did not, antagonize the person to whom it was addressed. 86.44.33.122 (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do I see that it inflamed any situation, just to be clear. 86.44.33.122 (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your brave attempts to upheld scholarly standards in the Israel/Palestine-area of WP. Deep regards to Nishidani from Huldra (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Neil

My name ain't Neil, but I did copy everything to the last archive, if you didn't want that let me know and will remove. With sincerity, peace and happiness Nishidani, Nableezy (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]