User talk:John Quincy Adding Machine/Feb2010
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ze'ev Tzahor Auschwitz lie
[[1] Potrzebuje poparcia Cautious (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Reported for canvassing at link. —what a crazy random happenstance 13:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Your canvassing complaint about Ozguroot
Hi Happenstance, I haven't looked into Ozguroot's conduct enough to say whether or not I agree it was inappropriate. However, I wanted to let you know I find it inappropriate and uncivil for you to call me a "partisan user," as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ozguroot canvassing again. If you've read my handful of comments, you will not detect an iota of partisanship in this matter. I'd appreciate if you would retract the remark as to me, and I'd think the same would apply to many if not all the other users you put on the same list. I came to your talkpage instead of putting this remark at ANI because I'm sure it was just a careless choice of words. Thanks— Glenfarclas (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- You have taken a side on Talk:Passport, you are therefore a party with a declared bias. I do not mean it in a pejorative sense. Partisan, noun, "Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause". You were notified of the discussion because you have chosen a side - you were selected on that basis alone. You were WP:CANVASSed. Ozguroot has WP:CANVASSed editors to completely overwhelm the dispute, and for the second time. I had chosen not to respond in kind but rather report it, because I, unlike him, hold ethics. In the interest of saving the discussion I have now responded in turn, and it makes my skin crawl. But I feel as though the apathy on ANI has left me with no choice, Avala has now declared on Talk:Passport what is basically a prelude to reneging on and undermining the compromise. My complaint on ANI has been ignored, my request for mediation likewise. I have completely lost faith in the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia, and, frankly, possibly the taste for editing altogether. —what a crazy random happenstance 13:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Don't loose faith because of perceived apathy on the part of others. In general, your approach has been exeplary. It is a pity that the discussion was moved from its initial home without letting individual eds. know. Once consensus for removal was demonstrated by an admin closing, most probably took Talk:Passport off their watch-list assuming the issue resolved. Contributors to the initial proposal, up to 'closure', are probably not aware that this is still being dragged out and challenged in such a personalised and confrontational manner. To redress the balance of the very obvious canvassing based on the perceived bias of editors, I think that all who have so far expressed any view on resolving the 'visa-free blocks' should be made aware of the continuing 'debate'. RashersTierney (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have notified six of the editors that Ozguroot conveniently forgot (User talk:Funandtrvl, User talk:ArmadniGeneral, User talk:Blue-Haired Lawyer, User talk:Spartaz, User talk:Hans Adler, User talk:TreasuryTag) with a completely partisan message explaining the situation, hopefully one or more of them will take up the cause. TreasuryTag has since removed the message from his talk and hasn't edited since, not sure what to think of that, either he's reading the debate in preparation for a heroic cause-saving entry into the discussion or he's preparing an ANI complaint against me for canvassing. Hopefully the former. Not that I am too worried, as it is, if it were the latter, he'd probably just be ignored on ANI as I was. It may be a good idea if you added your piece underneath what I have already posted, so I don't appear like the lone troublemaker certain editors are intent on demonising me into. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your scepticism is probably understandable given the circumstances. Re TreasuryTag, his/her deletion is nothing more than an indication that he/she has seen your post. I am hoping to move this beyond a 'binary' situation, but if I think an uninvolved ed. responds at other locations in a way I consider manifestly unfair to you, I will unequivically make my views known. RashersTierney (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm off to bed, here's to not waking up to an edit war. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- 'And so say all of us'. G'night. RashersTierney (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm off to bed, here's to not waking up to an edit war. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your scepticism is probably understandable given the circumstances. Re TreasuryTag, his/her deletion is nothing more than an indication that he/she has seen your post. I am hoping to move this beyond a 'binary' situation, but if I think an uninvolved ed. responds at other locations in a way I consider manifestly unfair to you, I will unequivically make my views known. RashersTierney (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have notified six of the editors that Ozguroot conveniently forgot (User talk:Funandtrvl, User talk:ArmadniGeneral, User talk:Blue-Haired Lawyer, User talk:Spartaz, User talk:Hans Adler, User talk:TreasuryTag) with a completely partisan message explaining the situation, hopefully one or more of them will take up the cause. TreasuryTag has since removed the message from his talk and hasn't edited since, not sure what to think of that, either he's reading the debate in preparation for a heroic cause-saving entry into the discussion or he's preparing an ANI complaint against me for canvassing. Hopefully the former. Not that I am too worried, as it is, if it were the latter, he'd probably just be ignored on ANI as I was. It may be a good idea if you added your piece underneath what I have already posted, so I don't appear like the lone troublemaker certain editors are intent on demonising me into. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Don't loose faith because of perceived apathy on the part of others. In general, your approach has been exeplary. It is a pity that the discussion was moved from its initial home without letting individual eds. know. Once consensus for removal was demonstrated by an admin closing, most probably took Talk:Passport off their watch-list assuming the issue resolved. Contributors to the initial proposal, up to 'closure', are probably not aware that this is still being dragged out and challenged in such a personalised and confrontational manner. To redress the balance of the very obvious canvassing based on the perceived bias of editors, I think that all who have so far expressed any view on resolving the 'visa-free blocks' should be made aware of the continuing 'debate'. RashersTierney (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Participation at my RfA
|
Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 13:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for your RfA Support
John Quincy Adding Machine/Feb2010 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)