User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2007/Nov
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:TreasuryTag. 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. |
Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 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 06:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Doctor Who
It's really just to get the infoboxes and such in line with the general MoS wrt fiction. It's all part of my blitz to get a good number of DW episode articles to GA and/or FA. Will (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Circuit Judge
Technically, no. Circuit Judge is your sockpuppet. You and the sockpuppet ought to be blocked or warned. Auroranorth (sign) 08:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have 'checked these things out' - I was once a sockpuppeteer myself. You are using a sockpuppet to circumvent a block (see this policy). I have reported your use illegitimate use of a second account as I believe you are using it for segregation from your blocked account. Auroranorth (sign) 08:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, please remain civil. Anyway, why can't you use this account for your vandalism reversions? If you wish to change your username, usurp your second account. Auroranorth (sign) 08:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, your account Porcupine is not blocked (see your block log). Also, by requesting a block you are violating WP:SELFBLOCK, so it isn't a good idea to request one. Auroranorth (sign) 08:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Now that was uncivil. Please don't do that! Why don't you enforce a self-wikibreak instead? See WP:BREAK (there is a link from there I think). Anyway, the reason for the block in the first place was for incivility. WP:IAR does not apply here - having a self-block imposed on you isn't going to help Wikipedia in any way apart from violating policy (not good!). How is your self-block an exception? Use the WikiBreak Enforcer instead. Auroranorth (sign) 08:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, your account Porcupine is not blocked (see your block log). Also, by requesting a block you are violating WP:SELFBLOCK, so it isn't a good idea to request one. Auroranorth (sign) 08:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, please remain civil. Anyway, why can't you use this account for your vandalism reversions? If you wish to change your username, usurp your second account. Auroranorth (sign) 08:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the Porcupine account is blocked. See this block log. The block log cited above by Auroranorth appears to be empty because Porcupine hasn't blocked anyone (Porcupine isn't an admin). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I made a mistake there, it was User:Porcupine not Porcupine. The issue here is evading a block. Auroranorth (sign) 08:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't wrong with the sockpuppet. And this is why you were blocked in the first place, for incivility. Please stop. Auroranorth (sign) 08:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're evading a block all the same. You departed because of an incivility block. When I was blocked from editing (for uploading copyrighted images), I said I would depart and then created sockpuppets. If those sockpuppets remained unblocked I would have happily returned and asked for the block on my puppetmaster account (this account) to be extended to indefinite. Then I would still have been evading a block with the sockpuppets. It is no different with you. Auroranorth (sign) 09:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't wrong with the sockpuppet. And this is why you were blocked in the first place, for incivility. Please stop. Auroranorth (sign) 08:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, the reason I removed the speedy delete tag from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Porcupine is that the speedy delete tag got transcluded onto Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, which should not be deleted. Therefore, the speedy tag should not appear on the subpage either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Doctor Who!!
Hello Porcupine! I LOVE Doctor Who too, and now that the third season has ended, I watch The Sarah Jane Adventures! How do u make ur userpage so groovy?
Jamboy 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 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 08:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
AN Discussion #2
I've instigated another discussion concerning your behaviour at WP:AN - You may wish to contribute. Nick 10:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Community sanction
Per the community consensus of at least 6 admins and 2 other editors, the accounts User:Rambutan and User:Circuit Judge are blocked indefinitely and the user known as Rambutan/Porcupine/Circuit Judge is limited to only using the User:Porcupine account. This Porcupine account is subject to standard wiki rules, including the trolling on WP:AN during 14 November 2007. See [[per community consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Rambutan.2FUser:Porcupine.2FUser:Circuit_Judge] for further information as well as the block logs of all three users. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, please note that User:Rambutan as a name was shed by means of a username change - it's not an alternate account.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
A few things...
Porcupine, I received your email. You ask what can be done about the userpage; well, I'm not willing to do anything while there is so much disruption happening around here. I don't know what is going on or whether there is something particular that is causing you to behave like this, but I find myself unwilling to oblige your requests when I see you making nasty comments to my fellow admins who I know are working very hard for the project, like this unnecessarily nasty comment. Please consider apologising for that remark. Sarah 14:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strange - I only just received an email from Rambutan asking me about my actions wrt the page. Nice to see that forum shopping has taken place before I've had a chance to get a word in edgeways. Martinp23 18:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I emailed you both at the same time - well, you, Martin, about 50mins later. Delay? Dunno.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Wow - are you Doctor Who?! :P - the email to me was sent at 1828 UTC, while that to Sarah would have been sent before 1452 UTC. Martinp23 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I like to think that I am :-) Does your server list received, sent, transferred, created, passed on or what sort of timing? I promise that I sent them in the timeframe I indicated above.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd also like to point out that I wasn't forum-shopping; Sarah was the admin who originally deleted User talk:Rambutan. She was already involved!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Martin, the email was dated 05:20 14 November. Porcupine, there absolutely was not a consensus to delete your userpage. I simply agreed to do it as a favour to you. But when I come back and I see you being rude and nasty other editors and other admins like Nick, it really discinlines me from doing you any more favours. So I'm leaving the pages as the are. If I come back in a few weeks and the page hasn't been deleted and there has been no more more disruption or nastiness and you still want it deleted, I will do it for you but that's the best I can offer you as I can offer at present.Sarah 22:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Timezones confuse me - nevermind :) Martinp23 22:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Martin, the email was dated 05:20 14 November. Porcupine, there absolutely was not a consensus to delete your userpage. I simply agreed to do it as a favour to you. But when I come back and I see you being rude and nasty other editors and other admins like Nick, it really discinlines me from doing you any more favours. So I'm leaving the pages as the are. If I come back in a few weeks and the page hasn't been deleted and there has been no more more disruption or nastiness and you still want it deleted, I will do it for you but that's the best I can offer you as I can offer at present.Sarah 22:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
You've been blocked for 7 days for continued trolling after being warned by several administrators and for sock abuse. You can request to be unblocked if you think this block is unjustified by posting {{unblock|reason}}. Dreadstar † 21:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Porcupine. I saw the topic Nick started at WP:AN, and I have a few thoughts. I don't think it was appropriate for the people who commented there to call your edits "trolling", because I don't think that you were or are deliberately or intentionally attempting to cause disruption. Observing the discussion thread, however, I note that most of the people who commented there were frustrated and did not wish to comply with your request, regardless your intentions. On Wikipedia it is often difficult to judge the actual community consensus, but WP:AN and WP:AN/I are somewhat of an exception, as they are widely read and heavily-trafficked pages. In general I think it is safe to assume that when most of the people commenting at WP:AN or WP:AN/I agree, and it is not outwith the scope of those boards (e.g. dispute resolution), the community consensus can justifiably be stated in their favour. I don't intend to say that one should always submit to be peer pressure. In a collaborative environment, however, when almost all who comment at a heavily-trafficked area agree, then their agreement should be determined to be the "consensus" barring some notable change.
- I also understand that it can be frustrating when things do not go your way. In my personal experience, I can recall one particular decision on Wikipedia which I strongly oppose. But at some point, I realized that I had to drop my opposition, because most other editors disagreed with me and consensus was decidedly not in my favour. I still maintain my opinion, and occasionally comment as such when this particular topic is brought up, but I realize that, at least for now, I should accept that other editors simply do not agree.
- I mention this in hopes that it will benefit you. You can disagree with a particular community decision, but not cause others to perceive disruption. I don't know if I particularly agree with the editors who commented in the thread at WP:AN, but I would concede that they were nearly unanimous in their opposition to your request. I hope that you realize this and act accordingly. If you would like to continue discussing, feel free to post here. I will add your talk page to my watchlist. Cheers, --Iamunknown 06:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
TreasuryTag/Archives/2007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I personally don't see where I trolled after the application of Rlvese's community sanctions. Therefore this block seems a wee bit silly. I have also not abused sockpuppet accounts at all, including after the application of sanctions. I asked several valid questions about the precise meaning of the sanctions, in order to avoid going over them.
Decline reason:
It looks clear to me that you continued to nag Rlvese on his talk page even after he notified you of your sanctions. You have been warned time and time again about your trolling. — krimpet⟲ 07:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Not very nice. Dummy comment to fix archiving.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to state publicly that this user is an abusive sockpuppet of five permabanned users (see here): France a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Secisalive! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Secfrance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Dwrules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and MrClaxson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - see also Claxson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and all his sockpuppets. For more info on why he is definitely a sockpuppet, see this trolling. I'll be happy to answer any questions. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 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 (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Null edits
Making null edits to ANI with summaries like "**ADMIN ATTENTION NEEDED**" and "***IMPORTANT*** - can an admin actually deal with this, please?" doesn't help at all, first because we have no idea on what "this" is, and secondly because ANI moves fast... You made the thread (whatever that thread is), dozens of users will read it regardless of your edits. -- lucasbfr talk 12:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- With respect, a) it's been ignored for three days, and b) this is made clear by viewing the diff, as it is the paragraph in question that is shown in the rather attractive green-shaded box.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- The diff I have on Twinkle only shows your signature and the thread below, hence the remark :). I agree that moving the thread at the bottom is more likely to draw attention. -- lucasbfr talk 13:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Moves
To the bottom of the WP:ANI page, where it belongs, and now resides. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 13:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of U R MR GAY
There was this meme involving stars on the Super Mario Galaxy box art which spelled out "U R MR GAY", and it WAS covered on Joystiq. Just thought I'd take people to the right place since it DID involve that game ViperSnake151 13:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Notice
After all the incivility, baiting and biting you did wrt user Sambure (not blameless either, but as a newbie less familiar with our methods and rules), you just coulndt' stop when asked to by different editors. Ths removal of an edit by Rlevse[1] may have been an error, but this edit (apologizing on behalf of the user you are in dispute with?)[2] is so over the top that you should take the time to seriously rethink your behaviour around here. When you come back after this 1 month block, please try to reamin civil and not to bite the new<bies. Fram (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.
TreasuryTag/Archives/2007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please actually read this charitably! Firstly, the removal of the comment was a mistake due to 3+ edit conflicts, if memory serves me right; the edit I made was trying to fix collateral damage. Now, I was insulted in varoius languages by the disruptive newbie in question, who also removed an AfD tag 3 times and disrupted the AfD's talkpage with a large template box that should simply have been linked to. This user made some indescribably childish edits, and persisted in creating their own ANI thread beneath mine with an inflammatory title. They did this even after instructed not to by an admin. The second diff you show was admittedly a little sarcastic of me, but I was attempting to convey to Mr East that I had not in fact fought on the page, or come to the page intending to fight. I discovered harassment and defamation against me there, and asked about the reasons for its presence. Please note that this IP, a suggested sockpuppet of mine, is not one. I edit from a static IP which begins 84 - I'll have to log out to find it for you guys which is this. Here is some evidence; I know it's not conclusive but here's something that is, slightly: has anyone here ever known me to do vandalism? I pride myself on not doing simple, childish, sweary vandalism no matter how much I might want to. I would also like to note on the record that this is nothing to do with me.
Decline reason:
You were edit-warring and playing the dozens all across an article, an AfD, AN/I, AN3, Sambure's talk page, and Luna Santin's talk page. I don't think so. east.718 at 17:16, November 22, 2007
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
AN3? I don't think I've ever edited it...--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Music torture
Music torture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Music torture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music torture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Music torture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking this user, she has a nasty temperament and a history of personal attacks. No doubt she'll be back at once the block is over, but what can you do? ;) Newtman (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The second User:Rambutan
I've received your email in which you state that a different person created the "second" User:Rambutan on Oct 13, 2007. Note this user only made one edit, on that same day and there was a whole month prior to the indef block. I contacted a checkuser, User:Deskana, who confirmed this second Rambutan is indeed not you. However, he also stated that a separate reason prevents this second Rambutan from being unblocked, that it will likely never be unblocked, and that he can not reveal the reason. The second Rambutan is still under investigation. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, fine, as long as I'm not under blame for anything! Please reply so I can be sure that I'm not!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've confirmed the second Rambutan isn't you. The investigation is something else related to that account, but not to you. This does not affect your chances of an unblock, however. --Deskana (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Of course not. But this investigation is - effectively - irrelevant, is it?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- The investigation has absolutely nothing to do with you, as stated above. --Deskana (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need to snap; I just wanted to check. I thought it odd that you'd mention a confidential investigation to me when it has nothing to do with me, that's all.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not snapping at you, Porcupine. You've misinterpreted what I've said as hostility. You could do with relaxing a notch or two. --Deskana (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I apologise - your use of the phrase, "...as stated above" suggested impatience: I mean, it was certainly un-necessary, you could just as well have not said it. You sounded irritated at me for asking an obvious question to which you'd already supplied the answer. But my social antennae are a little run down this decade :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need to snap; I just wanted to check. I thought it odd that you'd mention a confidential investigation to me when it has nothing to do with me, that's all.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- The investigation has absolutely nothing to do with you, as stated above. --Deskana (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Block review
Hello.
After your request by email, I have reviewed the situation leading to your block. I am sorry, but I will not overturn it, nor suggest to the blocking admin that it be overturned. — Coren (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Jolly good of you - thanks for your illuminating explanation of how I can do better in future :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think that sarcasm right there is part of the problem. You have been warned, repeatedly, about your general tone and incivility; and it's not the first time you have been blocked for that reason. I could have gone on with diffs, and added further admonitions about how disruptive you are being. I saw no reason to pile on what others have already told you and add insult to injury.
It should be clear to you by now that aggressive and incivil behavior is not tolerated; and unless you mend your ways we will have no choice but to protect the encyclopedia. Had you come to me with an admission that you have messed up and a promise to try to not repeat your previous behavior, I probably would have considered offering to negotiate a reduction of your block length. As things are, you are unable or refuse to see how your behavior is inappropriate, and do not appear to be willing to change it. — Coren (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think that sarcasm right there is part of the problem. You have been warned, repeatedly, about your general tone and incivility; and it's not the first time you have been blocked for that reason. I could have gone on with diffs, and added further admonitions about how disruptive you are being. I saw no reason to pile on what others have already told you and add insult to injury.
- I don't see what's wrong with that bit of harmless sarcasm. It would have been civil of you to give a proper explanation of where the logic in my unblock request went wrong - and how the project is served by banning me - rather than just saying "no".--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Coren's message was plenty civil. I also don't see the point in explaining to you that which you have already been told, and that is not uncivil either. 1 != 2 19:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
A little primer
Here's a protip: Stop being sarcastic and condescending to newbies and don't AfD articles that were created only a couple of minutes ago. That's about as rude as it gets. Most especially, do not falsely mark your reverts of other people's edits as vandalism.
If you cannot follow WP:CIVIL, please stop posting things. I took a look at that AfD and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Jtrainor (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... do you think that Sambure/Boney-sockpuppet ought to be ashamed of him/herself?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
My response to this
- I am prepared to apologise on my talkpage for my disruption to the Wikipedia community, provided that the aforementioned community does me the service and grace of restoring my editing privileges very soon, based on the element of sockpuppetry that crept into the case.
- I do, however, unreservedly deny that the two proxy-IPs who replaced User:Sambure with FUCK FUCK FUCK and so on are in any way connected with me. A Checkuser by Deskana showed that there is no way of proving which user (Sambure or me) used them, and I would tentatively suggest that from your POV, there is a 50-50 chance, given Bonaparte's history of intentional troublemaking (120+ socks) and my history of no outright, 'sweary' vandalism.
- I will agree to attempt to fulfil the word and spirit - really one and the same - of WP:CIVIL.
- I will agree to be under the mentoring of an admin for three months, however, I would wish to have a selection of maybe 4 or 5 to choose from.
- I accept that contravention of any of the above points is likely to end with community ban. However, I want it understood that I would harshly appeal any ban - even to ArbCom - that I felt hadn't been properly dealt out by the community, rather than just by my mentoring admin, and I would like an acknowledgement that any 'indefinite' ban would be appealable after a certain period of time - perhaps 4 months.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I request anyone wishing to respond to the above does so at ANI, to keep the conversation in one place. Porcupine, as a blocked user, has no option than to post here. --Dweller (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Response to those criticisms of this, that appear on ANI
- Circuit Judge (talk · contribs) wasn't really a sockpuppet. I acknowledged that it was me, and that it was only to be used for those purposes permitted under WP:SOCK.
- I didn't really troll an ArbCom page. I asked questions to a candidate, maybe rather pointed questions, but I've lived through enough PMQs to know that they're no bad idea in some situations!
- I will apologise for inconveniencing the Wikipedia community "if and only if" the community is prepared to accept that apology - it is totally futile apologising otherwise. As a gesture of their good faith, I would appreciate restoration of my editing privileges.
- If you don't believe I can change, then I'm really not concerned about providing you with that belief. However, I believe that I can, and I'm probably better equipped to make a sound judgement on that issue. I have agreed to degrade myself (!) by accepting mentoring, and I assume that the mentor will help me to change.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Further response
- I emailed Coren after having been referred to him by another administrator. I emailed Sam Blacketer as I'd seen him editing ANI on my watchlist, and considered that he was an open-minded and neutral admin. This isn't really forum-shopping.
- I was shutting down my talkpage because I thought I was on my way out; facts and actions have changed the situation. NB:- I didn't email anyone after shutting down my talkpage, as far as I remember, except for Sam Blacketer as discussed above.
- My use of the phrase "degrade myself (!)" was intended purely humourously, to convey the fact that I am prepared to make personal sacrifices (such as being answerable to someone) in order to help make this site a better place.
- I would appreciate an unblock in order to edit ANI only, as Dweller suggested.
- I do "get it".
- Obviously this can't go forward until a mentor is found; I would suggest to GRBerry that this was clear from the proposal, and that the entire purpose of the ANI discussion thread is to attract the attention of potential mentors.
- Since Dweller has volunteered to be my mentor, I think that this issue is solved. I am prepared to 'accept' him. He is prepared to 'accept' me. We have reached a mutually acceptable deal, it would seem. Now, since at least 7 users were in favour of an unconditional unblock or shortening of block-length before Dweller made his proposal, and there are several users in support of the proposal, and I appear to have been largely cleared of being those naughty IPs, I would tentatively suggest that we have reached a consensus.
- My first point on this page, saying that I am prepared to apologise, is not the apology. It is a pre-requisite. I will apologise subject to what I typed above. This seems to have caused some slight confusion.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 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 (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Your message
I'm afraid that if you're put out by the delay, there's not much I can do about it. Reduction in the length of your block is not your right, though it is something I've been happy to lobby for. You may perceive my efforts to garner consensus as excessively cautionary - I deem them necessary. Sorry.
If I am to become your mentor, all correspondence until the end of that term will be publicly viewable, so I will not email you. If any other user sees this message before Porcupine indicates here that he has seen it, they are free to notify him by email.
Once you respond here, and assuming consensus is clear at ANI (which seems likely, currently) I will explain how we will move forwards.
If you choose not to return to Wikipedia, I understand and bid you farewell and good luck. --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Confirm that I've read the above. I was frustrated at the absurd delay, which I feel is my right (freedom of thought and so on), though I realise that it's not your fault, and that you're just being cautious. What's your plan, then? :-) By the way, I'm away for the next two days, so if we could sort this out tonight (UK) then that'd be great! --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
OK
OK. I'm going to unblock you. Please come to User:Porcupine/Mentoring.
OTHER THAN THAT PAGE AND THIS ONE, DO NOT EDIT ELSEWHERE UNTIL FURTHER INSTRUCTION. --Dweller (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)