Requesting irc cloak
Hello SarekOfVulcan, This question is about English wikipedia, but because I am blocked there, with your permission I would ask it here.
A few months ago you declined my unblock request writing in your decline reason "You know well by now that editors are supposed to be notified when they're discussed on ANI, so running around claiming "canvassing" is disingenuous at best. "
First I would like to point out that I have never done anything "disingenuous". If I said it was "canvassing", I said it because I believed it was canvassing, and the thing is I still do.
It has already been established that my blocking administrator Gwen Gale was canvassed.
These two users notified 3 users about the AN/I post about me. In order to answer the question, if these notifications were canvassing we need to respond two questions:
1. Is there a requirement to notify a user who is mentioned on AN/I thread?
No, there is no such requirement: Please see here: "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion." (highlighted by me). The notified users were not the subjects of the discussion, I was. They were brought to the discussion artificially with the only purpose of Votestacking.
2. What was the purpose of these notifications?
As I stated above the purpose of these notifications was Votestacking. The notified users had absolutely nothing to do the with this particular AN/I discussion, but they were canvassed because they were to believe to have "predetermined point of view or opinion" about me. en:user:User:Betsythedevine and en:User:Demiurge1000 looked over my contributions that have absolutely nothing to do with either en:user:User:Betsythedevine or with en:User:Demiurge1000, or with the AN/I thread , selected three users, with whom I had a disagreement, mentioned them in the AN/I thread and then canvassed them to the AN/I thread they were not the subjects of. Such kind of behavior could also be called wikihounding.
So now after I clarified my position, may I please ask you to clarify yours?
You might be wondering why now a few months later I am asking you about this. I am doing this for two reasons:
a. To make it fair for me at least.
b. To make you a better, more fair administrator.--Mbz1 16:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh really, was that the point? I'd like you to elaborate on why you feel the need to give more visibility to a discussion which was offtopic and unhelpful even according to its initiator («Yes. Let's get this discussion back on track. I'm sorry [...]»). I surely don't care, but if someone hopes to get something useful from such a mess of a discussion good luck to him! Nemo 19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- If I hatted a discussion that had me as its object back on wp:en, I'd have at least a dozen people screaming for my bit to be yanked, and I'd probably deserve it. :-) There's always another admin who can make that kind of call... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I doubt you didn't know it as you seem to have read the talk, but let's assume so: RfD are closed by administrators, just reopening without a new closure is not correct. If you do so again you'll be blocked, as I can't protect that page. Thanks, Nemo 23:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Clearing up some confusionEdit
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Nemo_bis_%28removal%29/Bureaucrat_discussion&diff=5346377&oldid=5346140 – Can you please help clear up some confusion about a message that you left to another user? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
At least I play by the rulesEdit
This is not the morality from the Star Trek that I know.
Does it make sense to debate you regarding to your edits?Edit
I ask you a simple question: Can we converse normally, like two humans, about the changes that you've made to the Don't be a jerk essay? Or will you cook up any argument-like sounding non-justification that serves the single purpose of "winning" the argument? --Mathmensch (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- By the way: What would a Vulcan do in your situation? Would he forcibly shut up a user account, on an unstable and highly questionable basis, or would he listen to reasonable arguments? --Mathmensch (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, I had my daughter read that whole section, without telling her why. Her reaction was "boy, that went in a weird direction..." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- I can't give you advice on the education of your daughter, because you'll not follow it. I can however try to explain to you what a double blind trial is. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
JSTOR account redistribution (The Wikipedia Library)Edit
Hi - according to our records you received a free account for JSTOR through The Wikipedia Library. Because we’ve used up all of our allocated accounts, and it’s been some time since they were distributed, we want to redistribute any accounts that aren’t being used to users on our waitlist.
If you’re still using, or plan to use, your JSTOR access, no problem! Simply head over to the Library Card platform, log in, and request a renewal of your account. You should be able to do this from your user page, or the JSTOR signup page. If you can’t find the renewal button, or have any other issues or questions about this, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. We’ll begin redistributing inactive accounts in September; if you request renewal after then we will only be able to reactivate your account if we have spots remaining. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)