| Revision as of 14:06, 15 November 2012 editKurtis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,763 editsm →The "troll" link of candidacy not in good faith: Add← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:16, 15 November 2012 edit undoPgallert (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers23,403 edits →Probably not considered good form...: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| :I've been registered since June 2008, so I do remember things from back then pretty well. What does that have to do with your ArbCom candidacy today? You don't honestly expect to be elected, do you? | :I've been registered since June 2008, so I do remember things from back then pretty well. What does that have to do with your ArbCom candidacy today? You don't honestly expect to be elected, do you? | ||
| :In any case, I went ahead and that segment of my opposition to your candidacy. Just as an aside, I did not make a personal attack — I was accusing you of trolling based on your recent actions, not explicitly calling you one. The reason I would say something like that is because ] can only be stretched so far, and when somebody runs for ArbCom or does something else when there is clearly no chance of them succeeding, it is hard for them to be taken seriously. ] (]) 14:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC) | :In any case, I went ahead and that segment of my opposition to your candidacy. Just as an aside, I did not make a personal attack — I was accusing you of trolling based on your recent actions, not explicitly calling you one. The reason I would say something like that is because ] can only be stretched so far, and when somebody runs for ArbCom or does something else when there is clearly no chance of them succeeding, it is hard for them to be taken seriously. ] (]) 14:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Probably not considered good form... == | |||
| ...for me to question an entry in a voters' guide, but I cannot resist: | |||
| #"What does that even mean?" -- Happy to answer a question about this on the respective page, but I thought that the answer is obvious: Arbitration does no sentencing, only findings of fact. This might not be the case everywhere in the world, which I should probably have considered when writing that phrase. My bad. | |||
| #"Technically he is right" -- Then what's the problem? I checked all elected users, and I considered founder-appointed editors irrelevant, as this was an election statement. | |||
| #"how would a Checkuser be able to find the username of someone who created a subsequently deleted page if they are unable to ''view'' deleted pages to begin with?" -- CheckUsers have that ability. | |||
| #"professor" -- unfortunately not. Our institution is not a university, thus I may not use that title. | |||
| I understand your other concerns, and I'm not asking for an opinion change. The "incoherent" comment hurts a bit, though. Cheers, ] (]) 21:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:16, 15 November 2012
 Archives |
Treats
Thank you for your note to missed PumpkinSky, with special treats - all the way to the bottom line please, for United Nations Convention Against Torture, 8 years ago, and the title story, - we talked about your part in it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm? Not a problem, but... sorry, what are you saying? Kurtis (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- I thought I said enough, trying harder: click the title of the story, scroll all the way to the bottom line (a link to an improvement of the article United Nations Convention Against Torture on 31 October 2004), the link to the article with the story is the line above it, - it actually told me a detail I did not know ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm looking around on this page and I can't find anything relating to me personally. Am I looking in the wrong spot? Kurtis (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- I thought I said enough, trying harder: click the title of the story, scroll all the way to the bottom line (a link to an improvement of the article United Nations Convention Against Torture on 31 October 2004), the link to the article with the story is the line above it, - it actually told me a detail I did not know ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- As a side note pertaining to PumpkinSky, I've known him for several years now (i.e. back in the days when there was no "PumpkinSky", just some guy calling himself "Rlevse" with a fancy green signature and a bunch of advanced permissions). He's a great guy, really — he was (and I think remains) a superlative Wikipedian. He's made some excellent content contributions (albeit somewhat marred by the close paraphrasing issues, but it's not that big of a deal) and was also very active in maintenance areas. As an administrator, his name was practically ubiquitous with SPI; for a long time, I saw him as sort of a poster child for the idea of applying a zero tolerance policy towards illegitemate uses of alternate accounts. He was probably the overall most stringent arbitrator during his time on the committee, advocating sanctions in most cases as a means to remedy the situation — he had supported banning several productive contributors if he found that their personalities were incompatible with the project's collaborative environment. I didn't always agree with him, but I at least respected his perspective on matters. Rlevse vanished from the project in October 2010 due to... well, you probably know the story, but then he came back in 2011. I actually had no idea PumpkinSky was the very same user as Rlevse until July 2012 when he posted on my talk page about me submitting an RfA to become an administrator (he'd offered to nominate me back in March 2009). I've seen PumpkinSky around quite a bit, but never did I suspect a thing until I visited his userpage. Kurtis (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, - your history around here is much longer than mine, Rlevse vanishing was the first time that I noticed on this project what people do to people. The person behind Rlevse grew up, I think, and did not support this time to ban a productive contributor ;) - I hope he will grow up further to ignore mistrust as long as the right people trust him, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- The link above was deleted, I tried again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The "troll" link of candidacy not in good faith
Asking you to retract accusing me of being a troll. Context is important. You are obviously not around long enough to know what made me take long wiki-breaks since November 2008 (that was my first time running for ArbCom and I was controversially blocked by another candidate before the election. A block later arbitrator FT2 deemed unwarranted according to my block log. This incident is documented here User_talk:NWA.Rep/Statement#Personal_encounter_of_admin_abuse_on_Wikipedia with supporting diffs) or the background of my block log (many of which are 1 second apology blocks). Don't call me a troll when you don't know the whole story. Retract the personal attack--YOLO Swag (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've been registered since June 2008, so I do remember things from back then pretty well. What does that have to do with your ArbCom candidacy today? You don't honestly expect to be elected, do you?
- In any case, I went ahead and redacted that segment of my opposition to your candidacy. Just as an aside, I did not make a personal attack — I was accusing you of trolling based on your recent actions, not explicitly calling you one. The reason I would say something like that is because WP:AGF can only be stretched so far, and when somebody runs for ArbCom or does something else when there is clearly no chance of them succeeding, it is hard for them to be taken seriously. Kurtis (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Probably not considered good form...
...for me to question an entry in a voters' guide, but I cannot resist:
- "What does that even mean?" -- Happy to answer a question about this on the respective page, but I thought that the answer is obvious: Arbitration does no sentencing, only findings of fact. This might not be the case everywhere in the world, which I should probably have considered when writing that phrase. My bad.
- "Technically he is right" -- Then what's the problem? I checked all elected users, and I considered founder-appointed editors irrelevant, as this was an election statement.
- "how would a Checkuser be able to find the username of someone who created a subsequently deleted page if they are unable to view deleted pages to begin with?" -- CheckUsers have that ability.
- "professor" -- unfortunately not. Our institution is not a university, thus I may not use that title.
I understand your other concerns, and I'm not asking for an opinion change. The "incoherent" comment hurts a bit, though. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)