Arcticocean (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
Well I hardly think my opinion of the president determines how well I am an admin. You could have at least given it 24 hours before closing it. <font face="papyrus">[[User:Ctjf83|'''<font color="#ff0000">C</font><font color="#ff6600">t</font><font color="#ffff00">j</font><font color="#009900">f</font><font color="#0000ff">8</font><font color="#6600cc">3</font>''']][[Talk:Ctjf83|Talk]]</font> 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
Well I hardly think my opinion of the president determines how well I am an admin. You could have at least given it 24 hours before closing it. <font face="papyrus">[[User:Ctjf83|'''<font color="#ff0000">C</font><font color="#ff6600">t</font><font color="#ffff00">j</font><font color="#009900">f</font><font color="#0000ff">8</font><font color="#6600cc">3</font>''']][[Talk:Ctjf83|Talk]]</font> 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:I sympathise with your opinion on that topic, but this was definitely not going to pass. I gave it a while—RfAs are closed early after only 3 votes to 0 against the request, so the RfA in question was pretty far-gone in terms of [[WP:SNOW|snowball]] closures. It's done and dusted now; you're best bet from here on in is to review the opposes, and see how you can improve—many candidates who fail RfAs draw up a list of "targets" to work on. Regards, <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] [[User:AGK/Contact|§]]</span> 17:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
:I sympathise with your opinion on that topic, but this was definitely not going to pass. I gave it a while—RfAs are closed early after only 3 votes to 0 against the request, so the RfA in question was pretty far-gone in terms of [[WP:SNOW|snowball]] closures. It's done and dusted now; you're best bet from here on in is to review the opposes, and see how you can improve—many candidates who fail RfAs draw up a list of "targets" to work on. Regards, <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] [[User:AGK/Contact|§]]</span> 17:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:: I think I was gypped on the RfA. The only reason it failed was probably because people didn't like my anti-bush opinion, which is crap. What can be done now? <font face="papyrus">[[User:Ctjf83|'''<font color="#ff0000">C</font><font color="#ff6600">t</font><font color="#ffff00">j</font><font color="#009900">f</font><font color="#0000ff">8</font><font color="#6600cc">3</font>''']][[Talk:Ctjf83|Talk]]</font> 05:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Deletion of [[User:Obuibo Mbstpo]] == |
== Deletion of [[User:Obuibo Mbstpo]] == |
Revision as of 05:43, 21 March 2008
Requests....
Hello. Thanks for testing out my secret page! Anyway, I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions:
- Please could you issue me with Rollback Privs? It's standard on Twinkle, but it never works for me, so I'm requesting it instead. I understand the differences between Undo and rollback, and I don't have a history [as far as I can remember] of edit warring. Thanks in advance.
- What do you do as an ArbCom clerk? Would I be able to become one, once I have accrued enough edits & experience?
- Can you explain to me what Mediation is?
Thanks, User:Microchip80I am Microchip08 in disguise! 13:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC).
- Hi there, Microchip. I'll get a response out to you soon, when I've got time to do it proper justice. In the meanwhile, do me a little favour, and read Wikipedia:Rollback feature, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks and Wikipedia:Mediation for me :) I'll get a longer response to you as soon as I can. All the best, AGK § 17:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No "consensus" whatsoever
I disagree with this edit [1], it appears to be a deliberate attempt to white-wash the criticism of the movie by a known scholar, and a violation of WP:NPOV. Two editors, with similar points of view, making an agreement does not amount to "consensus". From the archives of that page, it's clear that User:Talsal was always alone in his attempts to censor an opposing point of view, and never had the support of the other editors even when he requested a RFC, User:Javits2000 giving in to User:Talsal's demand is not "consensus". Please undo your edit and reopen the mediation, I am contesting this selective censorship of negative criticisms from reliable sources in that section, which is against WP:RS and WP:NPOV.--CreazySuit (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am not going to undo my edit, although I will grant you leeway to revert me if you so desire. Similarly, I am not going to re-open the Mediation: insofar as the issues listed there are concerned, the case is resolved. If you do have a desire to undertake dispute resolution on the case, I would suggest you start primarily at the article in question's talk page, as described at WP:DR. All the best, AGK § 18:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
File:Hersfold.JPG | Thanks! | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
9/11 arbitration
Dear AGK,
thank you for your message. Can you tell me please what the scope of the arbitration will be? Will it be only the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, or also all related articles, especially 9/11 ? I would very much like to include the 9/11 article, because I am being accused of edit warring and 3RR violation in that article, and the dissensus visible at that article is i.m.o. at the root of the name dispute in the conspiracy theories article. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, arbitration will most likely not have a "scope" with regards to articles—rather, arbitration focusses on the conduct of editors involved in a dispute. I'm reluctant to say more, as I'm the Clerk for the case, rather than a party, and I would prefer to stay neutral, but I would encourage you to provide any evidence you see as relevant, and, of course, to review the arbitration guide, if you are unfamiliar with the on-Wiki arbitration process. All the best, AGK § 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
POV
I advise you regarding edit warring by warned THUGCHILDz with these POV reverts against 4 different editors: 1, 2, 3 and many others of 19 March. You know this case pertinent National sport and I hope you consider this unfair situation because I was blocked and THUGCHILDz not yet: it's crazy!!!! May I edit for improve article national sport? Regards,--PIO (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
RfA
Well I hardly think my opinion of the president determines how well I am an admin. You could have at least given it 24 hours before closing it. Ctjf83Talk 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I sympathise with your opinion on that topic, but this was definitely not going to pass. I gave it a while—RfAs are closed early after only 3 votes to 0 against the request, so the RfA in question was pretty far-gone in terms of snowball closures. It's done and dusted now; you're best bet from here on in is to review the opposes, and see how you can improve—many candidates who fail RfAs draw up a list of "targets" to work on. Regards, AGK § 17:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of User:Obuibo Mbstpo
Would you object if I restored it? He's developing something of a sock farm, and I'd prefer to get rid of the various redlinks associated with that category. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)