| Revision as of 20:53, 5 December 2007 editPeter Damian (original account) (talk | contribs)3,068 edits →Favour asked← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:55, 5 December 2007 edit undoRyan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,432 edits →Favour asked: cmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 286: | Line 286: | ||
| ::::: Why can't I ask the pseudo-science questions again? I have already deleted the original questions, because of the general mush. And I have a concern about this person (i.e. about the pseudo science) that a whole bunch of people in the community just don't understand. Why this concern? And this strikes me as bullying again. Please stop these questions about legitimate concerns. ] (]) 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | ::::: Why can't I ask the pseudo-science questions again? I have already deleted the original questions, because of the general mush. And I have a concern about this person (i.e. about the pseudo science) that a whole bunch of people in the community just don't understand. Why this concern? And this strikes me as bullying again. Please stop these questions about legitimate concerns. ] (]) 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::: And who are you anyway???? 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) ] (]) 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | :::::: And who are you anyway???? 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) ] (]) 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Check my userpage if you want to know who I am. I can assure you this isn't bullying, just a serious concern that you are harassing FT2. As I said, you've had your say, you've opposed, you're not going to change that vote, so move on. ] 20:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:55, 5 December 2007
05:29, Thursday 26 December 2024
 |
 |
 |
 |
 | |
|
Userpage (commons · meta) |
Talk (Archives) |
Gallery |
Barnstars |
Drafts | |
 Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you... Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have a question or need help. I'll do my best and can probably point you in the right direction if it isn't something I can sort out myself. Will |
Somewhat-Belated RfA Thanks :-)
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
Thank you so much for all your help and support, Will. If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me. (Oh, and if you hate RfA Thankspam, please forgive me. I promise I won't block you for deleting it ;-))
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)
This RfA thanks inspired by Neranei's, which was inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.
Rename Czar
Wow! You went through the rename backlog like a hot knife through butter! Way to go! -- Cecropia (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- On the other hand, the number of admins we have has gone down from 1419 to 1418 during his tenure as a bureaucrat. I know of no other bureaucrat who has a negative record in this area. Please do better in the future WJB. ;) NoSeptember 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's no surprise that you've fixed it already. :) NoSeptember 13:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Quorum and the RFA
I'm a strong adherent to the idea of many of our mistakes have occurred because we never address the issue of quorum. I can branch out with this criticism a number of ways, but I think one place it is clear is with RFA. Having just been too involved in one of the great knock down shouting matches in recent memory ("Durovagate"), and consequently not following your RfB properly, I'll first congratulate you and then explain what I meant.
The "RFA is broken" phenomenon occurs because 1) "bad" people get promoted, 2) "good" people don't. These are separate matters, as some folks complain because of disappointment, others outrage. No one can fix that, because we will never agree on the bad or the good. However, what I find more common, as an old timer now in the midst of a giant project, is that more and more people are blundering about with their bits. They may be nice, not nice, well intentioned, or shadowy agents of dark powers, for all I know, but when I look at their RFA's, I see that, aside from being recent, they seem to always be sparsely voted.
Badlydrawnjeff and I probably never agreed on a single article. He wanted all of them revived and preserved, and I think all but the most highly polished are wastes of space. I'm an extreme elitist in that regard, and he was an extreme inclusionist. Because he was passionate, he argued his position, generally well, always consistently. He also had nearly a year, it seemed, of demonstrating calm and, when not calm, of staying within the lines proscribed by policy. He always favored more discussion, less bullying. I was surprised at how well he managed to be as passionate as possible and yet stay clear of policy violations. I voted against his first RFA and voted for his second. If you know my deletionism and his inclusionism, you'll see that that really is saying something about how well he impressed me with his character and his restraint. I knew that I was voting for an admin who would oppose me at nearly every turn but agree with me that we work by open rules. However, he had had a year of vociferous argument.
His RFA #2 generated hundreds and hundreds of votes, incredible amounts of pettiness, and lots of threatening.
On the other hand, I can look over at some recent RFA's that have passed, and they have a total of 34 votes. Such was user:ChrisTheDude. I have no opinion of said dude. He may be the finest admin since Wile E. Heresiarch or Secret London, or he may be as troublesome as Everyking. I don't know. Apparently, no one else did, either. I know he's newish. Because he is new, and because he has done nothing substantial, he has had few views. In other words, he has not, almost de facto, demonstrated sufficient experience with the project due to having done so little to draw comment. RFA as it is now, with no quorum, promotes milquetoasts and the newbie over the passionate, involved, and experienced.
We've all heard the "if I had to go through RFA today, I'd fail" sentiment (or "if you had to go through..."). In fact, ArbCom tacitly acknowledged that when it moved the goalposts on Carnildo. If being active, engaged, and experienced means giant vote totals and being passive, particular, and new means low ones, then the only way to be sure that the same standard is at work throughout is to have some form of quorum.
I feel very uncertain about any admin with 40 votes, total. Such a person may turn out to be fine, but I rather suspect it's easier for the shadowy BADPEOPLE that Durova and others worry about to get themselves to such a position by bland gnomery with low vote counts than it would be if we had quorum.
When I passed, it was 35:1:2, and it was one of the busiest RFA's in ages. If we had a requisite 100 total votes (neutral is not a vote), we might at least be sure to filter out the new users and those who are doing so little as to have gotten no notice.
Anyway, such are my Thoughts upon this matter. Geogre 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Bots
I'm wishing to write a bot that can also be an adminbot, but reverting mass page-move vandalism, similar to RedirectCleanupBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights). I had a look at the code for RedirectCleanupBot and saw it was written in Perl (.pl extension), would it be possible to do this for a PageMoveCleanupBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (currently non-existent, but it could be useful, and would be another adminbot which would be useful.
I'm fairly new to this area of Misplaced Pages, so any advice that can be given is appreciated. If you could help me that would be much appreciated.
Hopefully, if such a bot can be created, let's hope it isn't as troubled as BetacommandBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights).
Cheers, --Solumeiras 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Probably the first thing to note is that the community is extremely weary of admin Bots - it seems to be required that someone who ran an admin Bot would also be an admin themselves. Also most of the code for RedirectCleanupBot was written by Eagle 101 not myself. I presume the reason you want a page move Bot to be an admin Bot is that it would block the page move vandal? Unfortunately blocking Bots are some of the most controversial. A page move vandal blocking script was run for some time by Curps (but on his main admin account, not a designated Bot account) which blocked users after a suspect string of page moves and reported it to WP:AN/I for human review. Curps has since left the project but I understand that another admin now runs a blocking script for page moves from their main account, though I shan't name them. So this is being done, albeit not with the same openess that a designated Bot account would provide.
- In short, although I think such a Bot is a great idea, I have a lot of doubts that it could pass WP:RFA and if it did I suspect it would need for the operator to be an admin themselves with a pretty perfect reputation. WjBscribe 18:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations!
Congratulations on your promotion, Will! :) Aleta 23:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah! That rename log is huge already! Congrats on the new tools, and glad you got 'em! :) Jmlk17 02:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just adding my congrats to one of the existing threads. So glad to have you as a 'crat. I really believe you'll be less of a "number cruncher" and I think that's important. Regards, Mr Which 13:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed the !vote. Congrats!! -- Flyguy649 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiHelp
Want to join? Best, — Rudget contributions 14:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Many thanks for your cool head on Hesperian's block. Thanks. Twenty Years 14:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Jeffpw
Here's my reasoning for blocking Jeffpw:
- He was edit warring
- As an editor who has been here a while, he knew full well that edit warring is unacceptable even if he or she did not violate 3RR
- 3RR does not empower an editor to revert 3 times
- He did not discuss with the "opposing editor" before his 2 of 3 reverts on that page.
- I felt that by continuing his reverts he was putting them both in the spot to be blocked, in a sense baiting the "opposing editor", although it most likely wasn't done intentionally.
- After assessing the situation, as well as a promise not to edit war, I unblocked Jeffpw.
On a side note: in the future, refer to me as "he"/"his" not "her", which you seem to have written on WP:AN/3RR. regards, Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 15:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also, if you really want to see heavy handedness check User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's issuing of blocks. Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 15:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry are you really saying "Its OK for me to issue bad blocks because someone else is worse?" WjBscribe 15:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I did discuss, and asked him to stop on the talk page, as well as warning him on his own page. This was before my 3rd and final revert, after which I brought it to the 3rr page, thinking I had followed policy. You chose to simply block me without discussion. You also didn't bother removing the autoblock after you finally removed my regular block, resulting in nearly another hour of blockage. Your actions have left a bad taste in my mouth regarding editing here, and I would hope you act with more caution before blocking other users in a similar fashion. Jeffpw 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry are you really saying "Its OK for me to issue bad blocks because someone else is worse?" WjBscribe 15:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply to WJBscribe No I did not say or intend to say "Its OK for me to issue bad blocks because someone else is worse?", I was giving an example of heavy handedness. My actions were not heavy handed, although I agree I could have simply spoken to Jeffpw on the issue, however, it is my position that he had been edit warring on the page even if he full well knew that he shouldn't have. (I apologize for forgetting about the autoblock).
- Reply to Jeffpw You were not following policy when you were edit warring with then other editor. Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has only been an admin for a couple of weeks. If his blocking is out of step with others he should receive guidance from more experienced admins. But I do not think heavy handedness is relative such that as long as someone is being more heavy handed than you you're doing fine. I would hope that the consequences for your block - a lot of angst and nothing positive achieved - would be enough for you too see that blocking was a bad decision. WjBscribe 15:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nat, obviously, I didn't know that I had done anything wrong. A simple explanation of the fine points of 3rr would have gone a long way. A simple check of my block log would have shown you I had never been in this position before. You didn't assume any good faith in this situation, and, as I see it, abused your authority. I am through discussing this with you, and as far as I am concerned, this incident is closed. That said, I am currently reviewing my participation on Misplaced Pages in reaction to your heavy autocratic actions. Jeffpw 15:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to say a few things:
- I did not abuse my authority
- As a person and an editor that has clearly been here longer then I have (according to wannabe kate: Jeffpw registered in May 2005, and actively editing since October 2006), Jeffpw should have known the fine details of certain policies such as edit warring.
- I object to the usage of the term "autocratic" as my actions were clearly not one of an autocrat.
- If you feel the need to review your participation on Misplaced Pages, so be it.
- I have checked you block log before I issued the block, and that is why I issued only a 24 hour block, which I believe is standard for edit warring.
- As shown here: you did not clearly address the issues that the other editor had brought up. Here's what he had to say in an email to me:
| “ | I'm just curious - why was I blocked for 3RR, when user Jeffpw reverted my edits three times, without even familiarizing himself with the talk page? I'm not sure if you read the discussion on Jón Þór Birgisson. No one has addressed the fact that their edits violated MOS#Identity, they simply told me to "get over it." I really feel as if I am being ignored and treated unfairly.
Jón Þór Birgisson refers to himself as "gay". MOS#Identity compels us to respect a person's choice of terminology. Yet Jeffpw and other editors reverted my edits in rapid fashion (more than 3 times), adding "openly", despite the fact that adding this word violates MOS#Identity. When I asked these users to address my point that "openly" is a violation of MOS#Identity, I was simply ignored. I feel like no one is addressing my point. It's clear from the edit history that neither Jeffpw nor the other editors even checked the cited source. Furthermore, please note that I was *not removing sourced material*. I have no idea where Jeffpw is getting this from. I believe that he is completely misunderstanding where I am coming from. Probably because he didn't even bother to read the talk page. If he had, he'd understand what I've been trying to explain for weeks. Also, I have been protecting this article from vandalism for six months now. I can't believe what Jeffpw is trying to accuse me of *without even understanding what I'm trying to say*. --User:X3210 |
” |
Now clearly I've looked at the talk page, and not once before that threat of a block did I see you discussing with him on his concerns. Now that gives me the impression that you did not want to discuss this with him, and that this edit war was going to continue. Your behaviour is not what someone would expect from someone who has edited here for a longtime. I think that the block was necessary and justified, as a method of prevention as well as a wakeup call that you cannot just revert someone or get into an edit war with someone without any attachment of responsibility with your actions. Although you did not break the letter of 3RR, you clearly broke the spirit of the rule. I apologize if this has upset you, but I was clearly justified to block you for something that a long time contributor, such as yourself, should understand and comprehend is inappropriate. Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hesperian
Thanks for that. Hesperian 23:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Sick of them yet?
Sick of renames yet? ;) You will be in a week or two.. Secretlondon 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm good at the moment. Enjoy the break while they're a novelty for me... :D WjBscribe 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Congrats
How could I have not seen your RfB? It would've been a Super Strong Support Good luck with the "Mop+" responsibility. Mbisanz 05:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just realized you're a crat. Congratulations! I knew you'd be one soon, but not under my radar :). Also, I thought you'd run for ArbCom, you would've been a good contender. Did you at least think about it? - Mtmelendez 15:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
RFCU oddity
Why are these cases listed here? See Category:Checkuser_requests_to_be_listed. I see no pattern some are not on the RFCU page, one is archived, and one is on the RFCU page. I can't figure this out. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- All new RFCU requests contain the template {{checkuser requests to be listed}} which includes them in that category. Someone needs to manually remove that category from case pages once they are listed on the main page. WjBscribe 12:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- AH, I see, it's at the top, I was looking at the bottom of the case page. I've also noticed a lot of users don't transclude their request onto the RFCU page too. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Premier of the Republic of China
Hi WJBscribe, Is it possible to extend the acceptance period for Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Premier of the Republic of China by 48 hours as there is only 1 of 8 that has not responded to the RfM yet, and I believe that it might of slipped his mind. Regards, Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- It seems that Jiang has been editing since the request was filed and was notified. If he were now to say he'd like to participate in mediation it would I accept be ridiculously bureaucratic to refuse to reopen the case. Our experience is that those who don't sign up within the week aren't really interested in mediation, but if he drops me a note saying he just forgot and wants to be involved I'll reopen the case and it can go ahead. WjBscribe 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Copied from User talk:Daniel.
- Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Premier of the Republic of China#Questions. Thank you! — Sebastian 22:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm recused in this case (as noted on the page), so WJBscribe (talk) is acting Chair :) . Cheers, Daniel 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; advice?
WJB, thank you very much for defending me here. I feel... distraught about the whole thing and it's good to know people are looking out for me when I'm too busy to promptly do so myself. I don't know how to respond other than to lay out my thought process as best I can remember it so many months ago. It's not really evidence, and I know from my many years of mock trial that someone's statements in their own interest are rarely persuasive, but I can't think of what else to do. Any thoughts?--chaser - t 15:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind; that's what I'll do. Thanks again for defending me again today.--chaser - t 11:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom elections
Hi WJBs. You comments where highly appreciated. I just want you to read my addendum where i explicitly explained my position. I hope receiving a feedback from you. Thanks again. -- FayssalF - 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Send me an e-mail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your mature and balanced administration. It's a difficult tightrope to walk but you negotiated it with aplomb. Alice.S 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
User talk:74.200.75.5
Hi I wonder why you unblocked the user, comments that he said was obvious trolling like this I agree a two week block was too harsh, but we can't endorse that type of behavior in the elections. This is a Secret 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that's trolling actually. A lot of good users seem to be concerned that power is being concentrated in the hands of a few people and that some candidates are a bit too "Wiki-establishment" for their tastes. That itsn't an invalid view to express, and I think the voting requirements should have been clearly explained to the IP before they were blocked. If they resumed now they have had it explained to them why they are not allowed to vote, a block might be appropriate. WjBscribe 00:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I thought the same thing, WJB. Which is why I left notes on a few users' pages, as the incivility and premature block were both unnecessary, per the blocking policy. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Username
You freaking work fast, WJ. It's quite amazing. You're like a bot, but way cooler. the_undertow 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ha! Just you wait til I have a go at the clerks for not getting to the requests quickly enough ;-). I mean your request was there literally 4 minutes unattended... WjBscribe 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unacceptable! I could have had my new username 4 minutes earlier if it weren't due to your philandering ways. the_undertow 02:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
HIYO-Blue Laser
I did make a comment on Deskanna's talk page and she never responded. I am sure of this name. HIYO (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, OK - I didn't know that. I'll go ahead and rename you then. WjBscribe 02:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Komodo_lover#Komodo_lover
See results, esp my last clerknote. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
'crat ness things?
Playing (!) on Meta I looked at what others had done with renames and also asked others wiser than me. Is this at all useful? Cheers --Herby 13:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom
Thanks for your note and for clarifying your position. I'll be honest as yours was quite a late candidacy I hadn't read your question answers and voted based on past interactions and a general belief that you would make a good Arbitrator. It was only on review the page and seeing concerns raised by some of the opposers that I realised I should have been more attentive to your question answers. The issue of privileged discussion is a complex one. On the one hand, discussing behind closed doors matters that could legitimately be shared more openly disenfranchises those not involved in the discussion and may prevent those with relevant information from contributing it. It can create an atmosphere of distrust and fuel conspiracy theories. On the other, there is some information that needs to be kept in safe hands. An extreme example is data covered by the Foundation's non-public data policy which is avalaible only to the most trusted (over 18) editors who have confirmed their identity to the foundation. Such material is apparently regularly discussed on the list and therefore legitimates the restriction of the list's circulation. There may also be information short of that which could be considered best kept confidential in order to encourage people to provide information and for Arbitrators to feel willing to express themselves fully (though that should not extend to attacks being made off-wiki than could not be made on it). Giano, despite his general advocacy of free flowing information, expressed the view that "an Arb has have the discretion of a Catholic priest". He is I think right. Sometimes people must feel able to contribute something to ArbCom that will not be shared with anyone else. Ironically, too much openness can have the uninteneded consequence of stifling the whistleblower...
As a more pragmatic point, you may want to consider that regretably some do not trust their fellow administrators - indeed some discussions suggest there are some who do not even trust all present recipients of the ArbCom mailing list. It may seriously hamper the effectiveness of the Committee if it ceases to receive information because those who should be forwarding it that information do not trust those who will ultimetely receive it. It could also cause an increase in the number of "secret mailing lists" through which this information is disseminated. Which would promote the climate of secrecy and distrust the increased openness was trying to avoid.
Anyway, just things to consider. I am more or less satisfied by your clarification but will let you think further on the issue. I am little concerned that your first opinion on the openness of the list was (to my eyes) a slightly knee-jerk one and doesn't appear fully thought out, which isn't ideal for someone wishing to be appointed to ArbCom. I shall consider my position over the next couple of days with a view towards restoring my support. I remain of the view that you are a talented and effective administrator, I'm just pausing for a little more thought on your suitability to being an arbitrator. WjBscribe 18:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I really appreciate your position and the time you dedicated to explain it to me. I am satisfied w/ it and will take this opportunity to thank you again for your dedication to this project. -- FayssalF - 14:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Prolly an odd sort of question
I've been to AN/I and have seen some of the sections listed there. I am thinking I have to preparean AN/I on a user for multiple issues of incivility and personal attacks across a few articles. I was wondering, since you seem to know where all the nifty things are, if you could perhaps point out an exceptionally well-structured AN/I complaint that I could take a look at so as to better craft my own? - Arcayne () 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I can think of one, but I can give you a few pointers:
- Keep the title neutral - people often switch of its titled "Absolutely shocking behaviour by User:X" or "Ban User:X"
- Keep it brief an focus on the evidence, people are often put off by very long threads
- Present diffs clearly, if you citing an attack use the diff as a quote e.g (from this page):
- User talk:WJBscribe - 00:24, December 5, 2007 - "a block might be appropriate"
- Explain what action you want but leave the evidence to speak for itself - don't go on for too long about your personal opinions of the person you're complaining about
- I think a good structure would be
- Introduction
- Diffs of misconduct
- Links to any previous relevant discussions
- Conclusions - what you want done
- I hope that helps... WjBscribe 16:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Congrats!
Congratulations on getting your bureaucratship badge. :) You'll do a fine job. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Favour asked
A favour please. Every answer to a question to 'F' that is not 'contentious' (these all relate to my original concern about pushing of pseudo-scientific views) is preceded by a message such as this. Sometimes accompanied by accusations of bad faith, trolling &c.
Can you ask him to stop this please. I've apologised for the remark quite enough. I am not acting in bad faith. I'm deeply concerned about this individual's involvement in Misplaced Pages (and now, other administrators). You may dislike my views, but that doesn't mean I am acting in bad faith. I deeply believe this stuff is wrong, need I say any more. I have no personal views about the person involved here, how could I. It's the internet.
Note, the other person involved in this (I never asked her to support me, never met her before) has privately emailed and said she will not get further involved because of the bullying. Please can this stop.
So, can I suggest a deal.
1. I delete all the contentious stuff from the Vote talk page. I remove the questions as a gesture. All the contentious stuff we handle by email. I will send you the diffs, plus analysis around these. And if we could have an email discussion first, so I can be quite sure I trust you. I trust you already in view of some of your remarks, but I like to be sure, apologies for this.
2. FT2 agrees to handle the non-contentious questions (about scientific method, pseudo science &c) in a reasonable way, and stops accusing me of trolling, bad faith &c.
Does that sound reasonable? I have some old-fashioned views, but I'm a reasonable person. Many thanks. edward (buckner) (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I note that the comment in your diff was written before you were unblocked. I can talk to FT2 and I think your offering to remove some of the stronger allegations from the vote page is a fair compromise and I think FT2 would then be more disposed to deal with the rest of your questions without refering back to the incident. Feel free to email me, I will respond honestly. I don't agree with the comments you have made on the vote talkpage and the way you have pursued that issue, but you are clearly a long term contributor to this project and should not be dismissed as a troll. WjBscribe 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Which I have done. This refers. I will ask the non-contentious questions again. The contentious ones, we deal with privately. 20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbuckner (talk • contribs)
- Can I suggest you don't? You've already opposed so I see no further need to question the candidate, and considering that you were quite rightly blocked yesterday, I'd suggest that you no longer comment on FT2's candidacy again. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Which I have done. This refers. I will ask the non-contentious questions again. The contentious ones, we deal with privately. 20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbuckner (talk • contribs)
- Why can't I ask the pseudo-science questions again? I have already deleted the original questions, because of the general mush. And I have a concern about this person (i.e. about the pseudo science) that a whole bunch of people in the community just don't understand. Why this concern? And this strikes me as bullying again. Please stop these questions about legitimate concerns. edward (buckner) (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- And who are you anyway???? 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) edward (buckner) (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Check my userpage if you want to know who I am. I can assure you this isn't bullying, just a serious concern that you are harassing FT2. As I said, you've had your say, you've opposed, you're not going to change that vote, so move on. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- And who are you anyway???? 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) edward (buckner) (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why can't I ask the pseudo-science questions again? I have already deleted the original questions, because of the general mush. And I have a concern about this person (i.e. about the pseudo science) that a whole bunch of people in the community just don't understand. Why this concern? And this strikes me as bullying again. Please stop these questions about legitimate concerns. edward (buckner) (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)