Open main menu

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election voteEdit

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

UAA reportEdit

That is very obviously not a new user. I'm not entirely sure they're NOTHERE, it seems likely it is the account of an established user who is concerned about harassment received from the subject of the AfD in which they are vigorously participating, and they therefore do not wish to associate their main account with the discussion. Hence the less-than-optimal user name. I'm not sure I can block for UAA in this situation, it doesn't really seem to violate policy, and it isn't insulting to anyone in particular, perhaps to Wikipedia mildly. I welcome and appreciate your further thoughts and input. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019Edit

IndeedEdit

the most-credible forecast. By the looks of it, this's only going one way. WBGconverse 18:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019Edit

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfCEdit

A request for comment is now open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. You are receiving this message because you were listed as a user who would like to be notified when the 2019 RfC begins. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

ANIEdit

You should probably know that the reason I commented the way I did at ANI is because I plan on leaving the project for awhile to get away from Sitush. Practically everything he said against me can be easily interpreted as a personal attack, but there's literally no point in me fighting it. Read this.MJLTalk 14:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and do you know what I did after that thread? I avoided him. He didn't avoid me though.MJLTalk 14:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Please disregard this message per the discussion on my talk page. 18:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019Edit

You have no idea what's going on in another editor's real life that might cause them to resign a functionary positions. Please remove your pointless and intentionally hurtful comment, or if somebody replies to it, then strike it out. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 10:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Sunderland A.F.C. and edit warring.Edit

See [1] for consensus. The user is, and has been, purposely editing to the beat of his own drum for the last week or so prompting actual responses from editors to reign in his activities. Attempts to engage in discussion have been ignored. Just FYI. Koncorde (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

And he has logged on, repeated the revert, but has at least started to talk on the discussion page the same crap we already have an RFC for. Koncorde (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

That 'friend' claimEdit

I know the discussion has been hatted, but I am not very happy that it has left your comment that that Fram is a friend of mine. To some, that will imply that Fram is more than just a person on the internet. I've never met them in person, and I don't know them well enough to call them a friend. Why did you use that word? If you don't want to strike it, I won't take it further as my reply is there on that page, but I wanted to make clear why I was so taken aback by your casual and misleading use of that word. Carcharoth (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Yes, feel free to get a willing Admin to strike it - I have no objection. As for WOW - hyperbole? I'll stick to that. I see many errors of judgement, in RL and on here. With your experienced history I would expect a more far more circumspect approach than to throw such a controversial suggestion into that RFA at 50/50. It gives every appearance of attempting to manipulate the !votes, even though unintended. Maybe when you put the RFC up it will look less parochial to Fram's case. If you are running in ACE2019, I'll be asking you about it because you completely failed to explain it. Leaky caldron (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

You can strike it yourself, the page is not protected. What RfC are you talking about? About ACE2019, are you trying to exert a chilling effect (you have claimed that what I did created 'a chilling effect' for !voters, where is the line drawn)? You obviously have every right to ask about this if I do run. I have considered running, but it is unlikely. My most recent reply was here - that is still the case. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: You know well enough that a non-admin touching a closed discussion will get flattened by a TP Admin zealot. I'm not that concerned to "correct" the record. Me exerting a chilling effect on you? Not at all. But you have completely failed to satisfy my concern about why you would want to interfere in the established voting arrangements of an RfA in the middle of it. Your suggestion even exerted a chilling effect on me - and I'm not connected to WMF. You got it wrong - simple as that. Look at the comments of others. Leaky caldron (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I can understand you being wary. I think some edits will be allowed to stand (maybe this one?). I will ping Xeno for his opinion as he has just moved it to the talk page). Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I went back and forth on leaving that on, ultimately moving it since it would be a timestamp post-closure. If Leaky caldron wants to strike something without adding content, I think that's fine. Maybe Xaosflux can perform the editprotected request, I've just relinquished the ability to edit through protection. –xenotalk 15:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Oops, I see you're talking about a hatted talk page discussion. The page isn't protected Leaky caldron, so you are free to strike through that portion of your comment. –xenotalk 15:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for striking that. Carcharoth (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019Edit

Return to the user page of "Leaky caldron".