Ryan Vesey (talk | contribs) →Sigma's RFA: I suggest that everyone drops this discussion |
Cyberpower678 (talk | contribs) →Sigma's RFA: Reply to leaky. |
||
Line 256: | Line 256: | ||
::::::::Believe me, I felt hazed. I've just looked at it again, I still feel it was hazing. You did the usual thing that people do, joined in with the attack dogs when you felt you had easy prey. You've only apologised because your argument against me was not supported by WTT. I do not believe you would have apologised if I had come to your TP earlier today. WTT, sorry to dump this crap on your Talk Page. [[User:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Leaky </span>]][[User talk:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Grey;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Caldron</span>]] 19:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC) |
::::::::Believe me, I felt hazed. I've just looked at it again, I still feel it was hazing. You did the usual thing that people do, joined in with the attack dogs when you felt you had easy prey. You've only apologised because your argument against me was not supported by WTT. I do not believe you would have apologised if I had come to your TP earlier today. WTT, sorry to dump this crap on your Talk Page. [[User:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Leaky </span>]][[User talk:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Grey;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Caldron</span>]] 19:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::Re-iterating how you perceived Cyberpower's comments is acceptable, but second-guessing his motives, his intentions, and how he would have acted, is not. His explanation is entirely reasonable, his (unsuccessful) attempt to lay out the ways he felt your comments could be interpreted was clearly intended in good faith. Perhaps you shouldn't be "dumping this crap" ''anywhere'' on Wikipedia. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 20:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC) |
:::::::::Re-iterating how you perceived Cyberpower's comments is acceptable, but second-guessing his motives, his intentions, and how he would have acted, is not. His explanation is entirely reasonable, his (unsuccessful) attempt to lay out the ways he felt your comments could be interpreted was clearly intended in good faith. Perhaps you shouldn't be "dumping this crap" ''anywhere'' on Wikipedia. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 20:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
{{od}}If this was my talk page I'd hat the discussion. I feel that editors should discontinue discussing here because there is no productive outcome. It is developing into an unnecessary spat right now. [[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']] [[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']] 20:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC) |
{{od|:::::::::}}If this was my talk page I'd hat the discussion. I feel that editors should discontinue discussing here because there is no productive outcome. It is developing into an unnecessary spat right now. [[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']] [[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']] 20:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
:{{ec|2}}You believe what you want to believe. I told you what my intentions were and you can choose to either accept what I told you, or call me a liar. Just know that I will reciprocate those feelings right back. I do not attack "easy prey" as you put it. I try to help out. Perhaps I may come across as crude, but no one has brought that up until now. If I do come across as crude, I work on my tone to avoid that in the future. I'm going to leave it at that.—[[User:C678|<span style="color:green;font-family:Neuropol">cyberpower]] [[User talk:C678|<sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat]]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 20:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:05, 7 October 2012
User | Talk | Articles | To Do | Toolbox | Subpages | DYK | Awards |
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message!
I'm moving into a period of low activity. Do not expect a rapid response from me.
This user is stalked by friendly talk page staplers. |
I understand that you don't have time to properly close the RFC/U as you promised. However, you are still the only mutually-accepted-as-neutral third party involved. As such, I think it would help if you asked some other capable third party to step in. If either "side" tried that, they could be accused of bias in their selection; but you are above reproach here. Homunq (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Again, it would be really good if you could help out there. It may be too late; though RTM did back off, there have now been 4 topic bans for behavior at that article, which might have been avoided if the RTM issue had been resolved more cleanly. But you did make an offer, and others acted based on that offer; so if you can't keep it, you could try to find someone who can. Homunq (࿓) 12:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I know, but it would take as long to find someone who would be willing to review as it would to review it myself. I know I made a commitment, but I just don't have time to fulfil it, something I specifically mentioned at that talk page. Yes, if I were able to help, the situation may well have ended up differently, but I was not able to and I am still not able to. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, real life comes first, I cannot help out here. WormTT(talk) 13:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Adoption Courses
Hey there worm, I was hoping to borrow adam's course and he said it came from you so I needed to ask you. If its not too much trouble, could you let me have them and/or help me set up a page for them? thanks. Libertarian=Truth? (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm on my phone so can't help out at the moment, but you are more than welcome to use the course, I'd be honoured if you do. WormTT(talk) 07:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Worm! I'm rusty with wikimarkup and code, so I gotta read up on that before I set up my pages :3 either way, thanks again! Do you want me to credit you at all? I feel like I should, but its up to you. Libertarian=Truth? (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
RfB?
Hi Worm That Turned! I know that I haven't personally interacted with you (at least not much), but based on what I've seen here and there, you are one of the premier editors we have. I've noticed that you aren't a bureaucrat, and with your permission, I'd like to take steps to correct this injustice. AutomaticStrikeout 02:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'd vote for Worm. He's exactly the type of uncontroversial administrator that a bureaucrat should be. That being said, he might have some trouble due to the lack of frequent use of the admin tools so far. I think it'll come down to whether or not he wants to change peoples' usernames or not. Considering the lack of those right now, I believe the community would be willing to accept him. Ryan Vesey 03:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- How very kind of you Automatic Strikeout. I kicked this idea around in my head a lot recently, around when Beeblebrox ran, because my argument against him was that he wasn't boring, and then I remembered I am. Luckily 28bytes ran, and that took the pressure off. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would vote for me, but I'm not convinced I'd pass, for pretty much the reasons that Ryan mentions, I'm not a button mashing admin, I take ages over decisions, investigating and seeing if there are alternatives. As such I'm one of the lowest tool users out there, and that's going to put people who don't know me off. I've only significantly worked in one of the key crat areas.
- I'll think on it some more, a few months ago I was vehemently against the idea, now I'm not so sure. WormTT(talk) 07:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'd support you without any hesitation - you know I would, but is it worth it for the two extra tools and closing two RfAs a month? With your patience and diplomacy for unraveling contentious issues I would actually more like to see you running for arb. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I did last year? First runner up don't you know, only about 8 votes in it. At the beginning of the year I would have said a straight no, but I've been persuaded by a few people. I'm still on the fence, but I think I'm more suited to that role than that of a crat. It might be nice to have a bit more sense on that committee. WormTT(talk) 09:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Golly, you're telephathic too. if you had seen the original draft of my message above before I actually posted it, it went on to say "... actually more like to see you running for arb and knocking some sense of reality into that cabal". But because I'm a loudmouth, I thought better of it ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'd love to Support you! I think that your skills at resolving disputes is better for ArbCom, and I highly recommend you run again this year. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Golly, you're telephathic too. if you had seen the original draft of my message above before I actually posted it, it went on to say "... actually more like to see you running for arb and knocking some sense of reality into that cabal". But because I'm a loudmouth, I thought better of it ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I did last year? First runner up don't you know, only about 8 votes in it. At the beginning of the year I would have said a straight no, but I've been persuaded by a few people. I'm still on the fence, but I think I'm more suited to that role than that of a crat. It might be nice to have a bit more sense on that committee. WormTT(talk) 09:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'd support you without any hesitation - you know I would, but is it worth it for the two extra tools and closing two RfAs a month? With your patience and diplomacy for unraveling contentious issues I would actually more like to see you running for arb. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Zero tolerance for incivility
What would you think about a change in NPA to make a true zero-tolerance for personal attacks with no preventative not punitive argument applying? If you people were blocked for 24 hours every time they called someone an idiot, soon enough they'd stop calling people idiots. It would take all subjectivity (outside of block length for severe or repeat cases) out of the equation. Do you think it would actually solve the problem and is there any chance something like that would go over? Ryan Vesey 04:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) there would still be subjectivity. One admin's pedalpersonal attack is another person's reasonable judgement. For example, in Australia, calling someone a bastard can be a term of endearment.
Also, I was recently involved in an altercation with a group of admins over the blocking (biting) of a new user, where I was repeatedly told to drop the issue with a whole slew of personal attacks from the admins who were essentially circling their wagons. In that instance (and probably almost every other case at ANI) there would have been quite a few blocks all around (maybe even for me, for accusing the admins of circling their wagons). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) The irony is that incivility and personal attacks are what have brought the RfA process to its knees, and if there were to be a bright line for incivility and personal attacks, there soon won't be enough admins to do the blocking! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think Danjel has it spot on. Personal attacks come down to offence, I've only been offended by one thing people have said to me here though Ive had a fair few attacks on my person. I've got to ask though, what do you think is more uncivil, a vague insinuation that someone is the biggest problem with the encyclopaedia, or a straight "fuck off, you idiot" to someone who's goading you. I hope different people would fall on different sides of that question, and I'm willing to move the goalposts to make it harder for you. Zero tolerance won't work. One day I'll write an essay... Maybe it'll help. WormTT(talk) 07:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stapler) But surely there should be a bright line for "pathetic worm". [1] ☺ Neotarf (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- something for your essay Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Rollback
Hi Dave,
I have recently been doing a lot of anti-vandalism work, particularly recent change patrol and with STiki. I would really like to be able to use Huggle to help me with this. I am therefore asking if you will allow me to request the rollback permission.
Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Will get back to you on that, I'd like to do a little research first. WormTT(talk) 20:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. :) Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Note
Everything else aside, this has nothing to do with personal "pride". As admins, we should understand up front that any action is at the discernment of the community, and as such can be reversed.
Bishonen asked for their tools back; used them to unprotect a talk page; then (re-)affirmed that they did so for WP:INVOLVED reasons on their talk page.
We've recently had several admins sanctioned (including de-sysopping) by arbcom for doing just that. Such action is clearly inappropriate.
So for me the issue is not pride, but rather not feeling that we should allow for such a double standard.
There is appropriate and inappropriate, and I don't see how any objective observer can see this as anything but clearly inappropriate.
Anyway, I'm kinda busy with something else (RL calls) atm, and of course WP:TIND, but I wanted to drop you a note to try to clear up what I saw as a possible misunderstanding. - jc37 19:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- "I have received an email from this user" =/= WP:INVOLVED. Possibly your abhorrence of email has led you to this erroneous conclusion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note Jc37, but as I pointed out on Bishonen's page, I cannot see that the protection was valid. I thought that at the time, and I think it now. If I'd had time or inclination I'd have followed it up myself, but I had better things to do. If Bishonen had drawn my attention to it further, I'd have probably unlocked it myself. The way you've handled it since then though, not justifying your actions, not allowing discussion of your actions (by removing comments on your talk page, the obvious place to handle it), ignoring requests by email (which would have been fine, if you contacted Bishonen to say you didn't want to discuss by email), taking it to Arbcom enforcement and shouting "wheel war" and "involved" despite a wheel war being the 3rd move, not the second, along with no obvious involvement (please do feel free to show me any) - showed to me that you appeared to take it personally. If I'm wrong, I apologise, but I'd like to see a valid reason for the protection. If the protection is not valid, then Bishonen's actions were appropriate per IAR. WormTT(talk) 20:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- @elen - It's not abhorrence of email, but a preference to transparency, and that except in very specific instances, all discussion wikipedia-related discussion should take place on wiki. I'm in the process of cooking dinner right now. But I'll go ahead and see about adding diffs (I look at the arb request and notice that I didn't add any diffs. In hindsight I see that it's possible that what I saw as self evident by anyone watching may not be as obvious to those who don't regularly read through edit histories.)
- @wtt - let me try to answer point by point:
- First this isn't about the initial protection. That's a different discussion, and one I'm happy to have once this is resolved. (Incidentally, I think anyone with an opinion on this - including me - should re-read WP:ADMIN and WP:PROTECT. If what is stated there is not per arbcom ruling and/or common practice, then perhaps we should see about making certain that it does.)
- "not justifying my actions" - perhaps a better way to phrase that might be "not explaining/clarifying my actions". Regardless, I did. I linked on Bishonen's talk page to my response to nobody ent, for example.
- "ignoring requests by email" - I get more than a few emails concerning wikipedia. I learned a long time ago that the best response (outside of a few exceptions) is to ignore - for reasons I attempted to note on Bishonen's talk page, among other things. Sometimes I have left a note on a person's talk page, and sometimes not. I was still thinking about this. But apparently (I'm guessing now) bishonen decided 5 days was too long to wait for a response to their email.
- "taking it to arbcom" - as I explained there, afaik, that's where we need to go. And I do not recall "shouting" anything.
- As for involved, re-read further up bishonen's talk page.
- I didn't think a full case was needed for this, as this is one instance, and because I was not/am not looking for sanction. I thought that this was so straight-forward a situation that all it would require is a simple motion by arbcom, and life goes on. But when I started to look over arbcom sub-pages, apparently only arbcom members can start a thread on the motion page. So I started the thread on the enforcement page, in reference to a recent ruling by arbcom concerning reversion of admin actions. (I didn't even add diffs, as I thought this was so clear.)
- Anyway have to go for now. bbl hopefully. - jc37 21:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
My second Wikipedia article
Hey Worm !! I have completed my second wikipedia article. Please see it and give your suggestions. Thank you.--ARUN SHARMA 101Talk | Email 09:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well done Arun! I'm really busy at the moment, so it might be a few days before I can look at it, but I'm very impressed. WormTT(talk) 09:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- To chip in i've reworded some parts but it's a very interesting article! Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
By George...
I think i have it! Check my userpage Dave, i think i did it =P Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Can you also speedy these four abandoned pages as i have no use for them anymore:
- User:Jenova20/RandomImage
- User:Jenova20/Evi (software)
- User:Jenova20/dm
- User:Jenova20/Born This Way foundation
Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 20:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Splendiferous! You've come a long way on here... you'll be a software developer if you carry on at this rate ;) I've deleted the pages for you, but a {{db-u1}} would have been faster. WormTT(talk) 07:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations!
Executive Director's Barnstar | |
Hi Worm That Turned! I am hereby awarding you the Executive Director's Barnstar, to celebrate your many contributions to the English Wikipedia! You were recommended for the award by Maryana Pinchuk, who nominated you for being a "marvelous mentor" on the English Wikipedia. Maryana says that you've been an active adopter of new users in the Adopt-a-user program, you've been helpful at the Teahouse, and that you also work to sort through problems with people who've landed at AN/I or have otherwise gotten into conflicts in the community. She describes you as patient and kind and says you've spent countless hours composing lesson plans for Wikipedians-in-training (complete with barnstars for completing sections), including rewriting a lot of our garbled policy pages from scratch so that they're actually useable (for example, this page on copyright. I think Maryana first met you in person at a London meetup: she says you're just as lovely in person as you are on the wikis :-) The Executive Director's Barnstar is an award that I give out every now and then, created for me by my colleague Frank Schulenberg to celebrate and honour editors who are making a particularly significant contribution to the projects. In addition to the work that Maryana describes above, since joining the projects in 2007, you've made more than 13,661 edits on 11 projects, according to the user contributions page on the toolserver. Thank you so much for your contributions! If you, or anyone reading this, wants to nominate an editor for the ED Barnstar, please feel free to do it on my talk page. And thanks to Maryana at the Wikimedia Foundation, for making this nomination. Sue Gardner (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC) |
- Congratulations on this one Worm! Ryan Vesey 20:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- I also think this is incredibly well deserved :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- If anyone deserves a barnstar from up high; it's WTT. Well done! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wow. I'm stunned, and much as I'd like to contradict the comments of my staplers... all I should really say is Thank you. WormTT(talk) 07:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well deserved!--RexRowan忍(Ninja signal) 08:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Same, couldn't have been awarded to anyone better ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wow. I'm stunned, and much as I'd like to contradict the comments of my staplers... all I should really say is Thank you. WormTT(talk) 07:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just piling in here with the congratulations - it's good to see such a wise and helpful Wikipedian getting recognition for this work! PamD 11:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Congratulations Worm! :) Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yay, couldn't have happened to a nicer guy! Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Cool! Congrats Worm. Oh, also good work polishing AAU and well done putting forth Σ at RfA. Swarm X 04:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Manual of style?
Is there any preference to where the box advertising other images for the C3 Picasso should go or am i free to place it under the first infobox? I can't find any rules or guidelines on this. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'd have to look into it... but I don't have the time at the moment... WormTT(talk) 12:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
We have a real problem
And I'm sure you know who is causing it. Get on Google Talk as soon as you can. Zac 14:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Potential mobile features we might build
Your input would be most appreciated here. Talk page stalkers also welcome :) Cheers, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm a little busy to work on something like this at the mo, but I'm sure I'd use it in the future! WormTT(talk) 12:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Help With Coding?
Hey Worm, just wondering if you or anyone you know can teach me some stuff for designing my own userpage and all that, and also a custom signature ^_^ Libertarian=Truth? (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- In a week or so I might be able to help you, but at the moment I'm a little busy in real life. WormTT(talk) 18:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I sorted him out grandpa. --RexRowan忍(Ninja signal) 18:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Take your time man, I know real life is problematic at times :)Libertarian=Truth? (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I sorted him out grandpa. --RexRowan忍(Ninja signal) 18:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Five Pillars Test
Hi Worm. Just letting you know that I had another crack at the third question on that test, think I got it wrong again, but after Jenova20 helped me to try and understand it, I understand the whole synthesis thing now, as I just didn't understand what the question was about at first. So I dunno what happens now, or if there's anymore tests and whatnot. So, I'l be waiting to hear from ya bout it all. Cheers BlueStars83 (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SarahStierch (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Apologies
Real life got in the way for a long time, but I now will probably be able to be more active. I would like to thank you for the support you showed me when i first joined wikipedia as an active member. I must say that I don't belive that I was ready first time around, and I will be back more actively on wikipedia. I still will not be continuing your adoption program, but thank you very much nevertheless. --Turbo566 talk 08:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good to see you around again :-) Email?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Adoption
I hope you don't mind that I've gone ahead and completed the vandalism, deletion, and dispute resolution assignments. I'm still working on a few of the challenging copyright questions. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- not only do I not mind, I really appreciate you taking the initiative. :) WormTT(talk) 18:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Editor Review and RfA
AutomaticStrikeout created the idea of an editor review with the specific goal of an RfA in mind. While I think it is a decent proposal, similar to things I've thought of myself, I could swear that there have been oppose !votes specifically because the RfA was too soon after an editor review. I can't really find any, and before I comment at the discussion I'd like to know what your experience with that is. Do you think it happens often enough (or has it ever happened?) and do you think this idea might have a negative effect on someone's actual performance. Granted, a lot of people will oppose for a lot of different reasons and candidates shouldn't be out there trying to please everybody, but I just thought I'd try to get your opinion. Ryan Vesey 21:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)Look at all the opposing votes for Σ due to the spelling of his name. Yet Berean Hunter passes unanimously 160-0 with a block on his log. I had a pre-Rfa on my talk page 3 days before my RFA, one person made a mild comment about it. What they did jump on was based on incorrect data, CSD. You just never know what will set people off on any given day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
A small job for you
Hope you're well, mate. I have a little job for you: a young editor has just asked me how to become an admin, so I am naturally going to fob that sort of work off to somebody who knows what he's talking about. He may drop you a note here, so please be kind, if realistic, to him. Catch up with you soon, --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Worm is well (or at least, active on a bi-daily basis), but looks to be overwhelmed with that work-type-stuff that the rest of the world is trying to avoid. I've left an extra pointer on the new editor's talk page, but if any talk page staplers want to set him up with an adoption course, that would be even better. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Worm's essay on how to become an admin is here: User:Worm That Turned/Magic Formula --Neotarf (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Barts1a
Hi, I've just reinstated Barts1a (talk · contribs)'s topic ban on posting on noticeboards as he was engaging in clearly disruptive conduct. My rationale for this is at User talk:Barts1a#Topic ban reinstated. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
He also started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StillStanding-247 - deleted as nonsense. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like to become adopted by you!
Hi I am spacecasetheman (here's my link: Spacecasetheman (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC) ), I would love to become adopted. I am only 14, and I know that others wouldn't adopt me because I'm inexperienced. I would like to be trained to become an admin, a editor, and a great user! I also would like to join an anti-vandilism patrol I am brand new to wikipedia. Please help and please adopt.
P.S: RexxS sent me!
Spacecasetheman (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
3PO
I think the AN/I discussion should be the most help. Note also that while they say they have indicated being a dev, that term doesn't necessarily mean what we often presume it does. (Back in June, I had to look over their SUL contribs [2] to find out more info/to better understand.)
At this point, I'd appreciate it if you'd look this over. And I'm perfectly fine with deferring to your discernment on this. - jc37 16:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
My signatures
Remember what a pain my signatures were, especially the Easter one, since they just didn't want stay within the limit? Have a look at these now after a massive upgrade.
- User:Cyberpower678/SignatureStandard (Used most of the time) (Conforms to policy)
- User:Cyberpower678/SignatureNewYear
- User:Cyberpower678/SignatureValentine
- User:Cyberpower678/SignatureEaster (fixed a lot)
- User:Cyberpower678/SignatureHalloween (minor problems)
- User:Cyberpower678/SignatureThanksgiving
- User:Cyberpower678/SignatureChristmas (minor problems)
—cyberpower ChatOnline 22:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- On a side note, I know you're extremely busy, bat any chance you could evaluate my test scores.—cyberpower ChatOnline 19:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Adoption?
OK, well I posted this originally on the talk page for your Adoption HQ without noticing. I am interested in your adoption program, would you be willing to help me out? Thanks--Go Phightins! (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Sigma's RFA
Greetings WTT,
The RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ, of which you were co-nominator, has identified a number of community concerns which may rise above the usual level of past unsatisfactory interactions, conflicts and personal dislikes which are typical of RFA in its current format. In particular there are concerns relating to off-wiki vandalism and on-wiki disruption of which you were presumably unaware at the time of identifying Sigma as a suitable Admin. candidate.
As prominent and widely respected Administrators your endorsement of RF candidates is highly influential, as can be seen from several of the supporting !votes. Therefore, in view of the level of concern relating to the past activities of the candidate, it is sufficiently important to ask you to consider whether you wish to comment on whether the candidate still has the confidence indicated in your nomination statement. There is a section on the RFA Talk Page.
Rgds,
Leaky Caldron 11:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I will be raising a queery as to whether the above message is appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Common sense tells me that wasn't appropriate at all. Worm That Turned is fully capable of reassessing their position of the candidate themselves without being badgered by someone who opposes this candidate.—cyberpower ChatOnline 13:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- WTT. Following discussion at WP:AN I wish to withdraw my query above. Your continued support as nominator is a matter entirely for you and your candidate deserves no further negative interventions at his RFA. rgds. Leaky Caldron 15:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've been vaguely following the RFA, but not enough to investigate the allegations. As such, my nomination stands. I certainly don't have a problem with you bringing this to my attention Leaky, nor do I see anything untoward about it. I apologise that I could not look into the matter further. WormTT(talk) 17:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Worm. You and have different views and opinions, but I have found that we relatively have the same principles. If you don't wish me to staple your talk page in this manner, just let me know.—cyberpower ChatOnline 18:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not at all. I appreciate all opinions and do value you as a stapler. I also see my talk page as fully open to anyone with any opinions even if I can't act on them. WormTT(talk) 19:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Thanks WTT, I appreciate that and I'm grateful that you did not join in the hazing I received from the likes of cyber at WP:AN. Reaper didn't seem to mind either but I eventually accepted Regeant's advice to withdraw the query, largely to avoid ongoing disruption to the candidate's RFA. Rgds. Leaky Caldron 19:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't attempt to haze you Leaky. I only tried to convey to you that what you write and perceive it as one way may be perceived by another in a different. When I analyzed that statement of yours, I perceived it in 3 different ways, as I posted it on ANI. Kudpung perceived it differently as well. It's hard to understand what one really means when typing up the words over the Internet rather than a face to face conversation. It makes that all the more important that words are worded carefully on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I came across as hazing towards which just proves my point that it's difficult to truly convey oneself through words only. I didn't mean to mean to haze, rather just give advice why such a statement was inappropriate.—cyberpower ChatOnline 19:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Believe me, I felt hazed. I've just looked at it again, I still feel it was hazing. You did the usual thing that people do, joined in with the attack dogs when you felt you had easy prey. You've only apologised because your argument against me was not supported by WTT. I do not believe you would have apologised if I had come to your TP earlier today. WTT, sorry to dump this crap on your Talk Page. Leaky Caldron 19:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Re-iterating how you perceived Cyberpower's comments is acceptable, but second-guessing his motives, his intentions, and how he would have acted, is not. His explanation is entirely reasonable, his (unsuccessful) attempt to lay out the ways he felt your comments could be interpreted was clearly intended in good faith. Perhaps you shouldn't be "dumping this crap" anywhere on Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Believe me, I felt hazed. I've just looked at it again, I still feel it was hazing. You did the usual thing that people do, joined in with the attack dogs when you felt you had easy prey. You've only apologised because your argument against me was not supported by WTT. I do not believe you would have apologised if I had come to your TP earlier today. WTT, sorry to dump this crap on your Talk Page. Leaky Caldron 19:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't attempt to haze you Leaky. I only tried to convey to you that what you write and perceive it as one way may be perceived by another in a different. When I analyzed that statement of yours, I perceived it in 3 different ways, as I posted it on ANI. Kudpung perceived it differently as well. It's hard to understand what one really means when typing up the words over the Internet rather than a face to face conversation. It makes that all the more important that words are worded carefully on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I came across as hazing towards which just proves my point that it's difficult to truly convey oneself through words only. I didn't mean to mean to haze, rather just give advice why such a statement was inappropriate.—cyberpower ChatOnline 19:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Thanks WTT, I appreciate that and I'm grateful that you did not join in the hazing I received from the likes of cyber at WP:AN. Reaper didn't seem to mind either but I eventually accepted Regeant's advice to withdraw the query, largely to avoid ongoing disruption to the candidate's RFA. Rgds. Leaky Caldron 19:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've been vaguely following the RFA, but not enough to investigate the allegations. As such, my nomination stands. I certainly don't have a problem with you bringing this to my attention Leaky, nor do I see anything untoward about it. I apologise that I could not look into the matter further. WormTT(talk) 17:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- WTT. Following discussion at WP:AN I wish to withdraw my query above. Your continued support as nominator is a matter entirely for you and your candidate deserves no further negative interventions at his RFA. rgds. Leaky Caldron 15:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
If this was my talk page I'd hat the discussion. I feel that editors should discontinue discussing here because there is no productive outcome. It is developing into an unnecessary spat right now. Ryan Vesey 20:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2)You believe what you want to believe. I told you what my intentions were and you can choose to either accept what I told you, or call me a liar. Just know that I will reciprocate those feelings right back. I do not attack "easy prey" as you put it. I try to help out. Perhaps I may come across as crude, but no one has brought that up until now. If I do come across as crude, I work on my tone to avoid that in the future. I'm going to leave it at that.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)