![]() | 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. |
I opened a discussion about whether or not to log alerts/notifications on the here. I'd be interested in hearing your views. Roger Davies talk 19:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I started this. Seeing your connection with Padu Uni, I wondered if you'd be interested in further adding to it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
So despite the extended semi you placed on Serama, some sort of dispute has inexplicably flared up again. A dormant SPA, Rsteagall ( talk · contribs), emerged, did some promotional editing. I wouldn't exactly call this a major issue by itself, but it seems to have spurred the creation of a new user, NCOCEO ( talk · contribs), who made the edits needed to get autoconfirmed and went on to go and remove the picture added by the original SPA for some reason (meanwhile they claim a picture where a neck fades into a background tree isn't photoshopped, which is in my eyes quite a claim). It's clearly a sock of one of the IPs which fought over this article so many times. Can you give them an uninvolved warning (I have the feeling I'm taken to be some sort of Serama importer/seller/somethingorother based on past statements, by which party I'm not even sure anymore), and take any other appropriate action? Thanks, CMD ( talk) 00:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to pull this out of the archives Salvio, but I don't understand how socks are a DR issue. The latest edit summary, saying "we ARE the consensus", shows they're still editing from some company POV or something. Again they're ignoring the talkpage, where discussion has been held. CMD ( talk) 16:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
So, basically, I can't in good conscience block him. My thinking was that if you get a consensus, you can then enforce said consensus on the article, without having to start DR every time "one of them" shows up. Until then, you can only tackle this by edit warring with them... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I notice there hasn't been any messages posted to the Workshop talk page in over a week now. Is something expected of me as this point? Am I expected to respond to the most recent messages on the Workshop page? Nightscream ( talk) 20:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
You know why, you also forgot to tag him
![]() |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I want to thank you for offering the extension, life just is what it is sometimes. So my apologies for not getting back to you sooner.
It looks like Beeblebrox has already pointed out in the workshop discussion some of what I was going to post (the jennifer grey discussion, for example), though I suppose I should note that due to copy pasting discussions back n forth (and at times, just removal), that discussion may need to be read chronologically between the three talk pages (NS's, DC's and mine), using the page history diffs alone. (NS's talk page history would seem to be moved to User talk:Nightscream/Archive 1, with some at User talk:Nightscream/Archive 4.) But I suppose one could start here and read diffs at least through October 20ish 2008. Several people besides me, including Hiding, Emperor, Doczilla, DC, etc., tried to talk with NS (with his responses mostly on their talk pages). It's been years now, has there been a behavioural change in the meantime?
When I had a spare moment, I started trying to better illustrate with diffs, and it just became a point by point lengthy mess which I'm guessing you'd have wanted me to trim anyway. And I just ran out of free time after that.
What also may or may not be of note was how NS seemingly turned on DC. Which surprised me, since DC had noted to me that he had met NS in person previously, and they were friendly. It seemed to surprise DC too, and apparently cooled their subsequent interactions.
I can note this all in some case page/talk page if you like, or you are of course welcome to paste this as well, at your discretion.
And again, my apologies for the late reply. - jc37 08:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, I see that you have posted a comment on the workshop's page; so there's no longer any need to copy your comment. As a side note, I have just posted the proposed decision; if you wish to make comments on that, you are welcome to. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
ChronicalUsual (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki)
Deonis_2012 (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki)
Hasan_Rizvanbegovic (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki)
Kihtnu (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki)
Sopher99 ( talk) 21:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Salvio,
I am concerned that my clarification request may have turned out a little too long. Would it help the arbitrators if I collapsed the long text and summarized the request into a few numbered questions?
Thanks in advance.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk
23:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I have apparently been mentioned in the evidence of this case. I find this odd since I have not edited this article and have had largely limited interaction with the relevant editor or topic area generally. To the extent that I have interacted w EllenCT it has involved removing WP:SYN, commonly after RFC consensus has been established. Not knowing exactly where to respond, I put this information on the Workshop page. If this is not the proper area to respond please tell me and I'll remove it. Thanks in advance for the advice. Capitalismojo ( talk) 18:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Already blocked as a vandalism only account, but if this is not him, I will eat your hat. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Salvio giuliano,
I've left the message below the DS Review page [1], and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen ( talk) 22:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.
She's using her talk page User talk:SuzanneOlsson today simply to attack me. I could reply I guess (see [2]) but it seems to be that this oversteps the reason she is still allowed to use her talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 11:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you serious about vandalism by Administrators......I have a case in hand..how will you tackle this please..... an Administrator constantly engages in a derogatory stance and shows clear bias.... how will you as a person handle this.... are you willing to fight this out..... Is it a challenge that you would like to take.....IndianAnthro 00:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for hatting; I'm glad arbs are telling Nina to make room for others and if you missed my prior remarks, I'm a DS supporter and appreciate the effort everyone is making during the review.
The reason for my note here is to observe that in the section you hatted I did post some mark up text suggesting technical writing improvement to the draft text; I intended no operational changes, just some tweaks to polish the apple on the presentation. I don't care if they get used or not, but I would like them to be actually thought about and not just lost in an editor's verbosity and subsequent hatting. Do you think it appropriate to repost that mark up some place where the clerks can easily find it again for consideration on draft #3? If so, where? As I say, the suggestions strike me as minor wordsmithing in nature. Thanks for thinking about it. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I've placed the comment below on Roger Davies' Talk page under the heading 'Correction to collapsed discussion' and am copying it here because the point is obviously one of vital concern to all arbitrators. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Roger,
Could you please correct this comment you made at [3]:
This is your fourth edit since you were asked to back off yesterday. Whatever benefit there might have been in your contributions has been lost in the - to put it mildly - freeranging nature and inquisitorial tone of your comments. You have singlehandedly provided about half the commentary over the last month, sometimes derailing discussions, stopping others in their tracks, and contributing greatly to bloat. Please now step right back.
Your statement is inaccurate. I made only a single comment after I was told my comments were unwelcome by AGK yesterday, and that comment was made in reply to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Can another editor no longer ask me a question, and receive a reply? The four 'edits' were merely 'fixes' to that single comment, as is obvious from the edit history. Please correct that inaccuracy by removing your statement which implies that I made four separate comments after being told my comments were unwelcome, and which fails to recognize the fact that I was replying to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Your statements that I have 'derailed discussions' or 'stopped others in their tracks' are also both inaccurate. I have never done that, nor have you provided an example of either. I have merely raised questions, and in almost every single case an administrator, either you, AGK, or Salvio has abruptly shut down any discussion of the questions I have raised. The questions I've raised are valid ones. Perhaps they seem 'inquisitorial' to you and to other administrators because you are committed to discretionary sanctions and you cannot look at them from the point of view of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who find DS strange, unjust, and harmful to the project.
Also your own comments which you later added to that section directly contradict the information provided to me by Robert McClenon, so why has Salvio been permitted to collapse the discussion with the comment 'Asked and answered' when the question obviously hasn't been answered? You state unequivocally earlier in the discussion that I was the only one ('one notable exception') who didn't understand the difference between the powers exercised by administrators in DS and in non-DS situations, and Salvio rudely told me that my question had been answered before, and that I was exhibiting 'supine ignorance'. The discussion now shows I was clearly not the only one who didn't understand the difference, since your later comment completely contradicts the explanation of the difference given by Robert McClenon. It is not healthy for Wikipedia when even an experienced editor like Robert McClenon obviously doesn't understand the difference between the powers, and when you have to tell Robert that his explanation is completely wrong, and when no Wikipedia editor can find anywhere on Wikipedia a clear difference and distinction between the powers. The only way to fix this is to set out on the DS project page a clear explanation of the difference between the powers of arbitrators, the powers of administrators in DS situations, and the power of administrators in non-DS situations. At present the differences are completely blurred, and no Wikipedia editor has access to a clear statement of what an administrator is actually authorized to do in DS situations as opposed to non-DS situations, or how the powers of administrators differ from those of arbitrators. Robert McClenon stated that administrators in DS-sitations have been given 'arbitrator-like powers'. By what authority has this happened, since administrators were not elected to be arbitrators? This blurring of powers, the refusal to clearly set out for the benefit of all Wikipedia editors the differences between the powers exercised by arbitrators, administrators in DS situations and administrators in non-DS situations, and the handing over of arbitrators' powers to administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not healthy for Wikipedia, nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above).
:) Drmies ( talk) 19:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Salvio, I've struck the note I left the clerks in the recent case request. I should have paid more attention to the wording of your decline. I hope you will accept my apologies for what was an error of judgement on my part. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Salvio there is an email to the arbcom list waiting for moderator approval that was sent on February 28. -- Pine ✉ 07:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Salvio : Just thought that I'd share a few comments regarding your posting :
As you may read, one editor after reverting my edits, refuses to discuss the reasons, writing: "You are parroting the same thing over and over again. I am unwilling now to continue repeating myself." I am not sure if I may start now WP:AE. Any suggestions ? -- Robertiki ( talk) 16:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — 10.4.1.125 ( talk) 00:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
I opened a discussion about whether or not to log alerts/notifications on the here. I'd be interested in hearing your views. Roger Davies talk 19:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I started this. Seeing your connection with Padu Uni, I wondered if you'd be interested in further adding to it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
So despite the extended semi you placed on Serama, some sort of dispute has inexplicably flared up again. A dormant SPA, Rsteagall ( talk · contribs), emerged, did some promotional editing. I wouldn't exactly call this a major issue by itself, but it seems to have spurred the creation of a new user, NCOCEO ( talk · contribs), who made the edits needed to get autoconfirmed and went on to go and remove the picture added by the original SPA for some reason (meanwhile they claim a picture where a neck fades into a background tree isn't photoshopped, which is in my eyes quite a claim). It's clearly a sock of one of the IPs which fought over this article so many times. Can you give them an uninvolved warning (I have the feeling I'm taken to be some sort of Serama importer/seller/somethingorother based on past statements, by which party I'm not even sure anymore), and take any other appropriate action? Thanks, CMD ( talk) 00:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to pull this out of the archives Salvio, but I don't understand how socks are a DR issue. The latest edit summary, saying "we ARE the consensus", shows they're still editing from some company POV or something. Again they're ignoring the talkpage, where discussion has been held. CMD ( talk) 16:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
So, basically, I can't in good conscience block him. My thinking was that if you get a consensus, you can then enforce said consensus on the article, without having to start DR every time "one of them" shows up. Until then, you can only tackle this by edit warring with them... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I notice there hasn't been any messages posted to the Workshop talk page in over a week now. Is something expected of me as this point? Am I expected to respond to the most recent messages on the Workshop page? Nightscream ( talk) 20:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
You know why, you also forgot to tag him
![]() |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I want to thank you for offering the extension, life just is what it is sometimes. So my apologies for not getting back to you sooner.
It looks like Beeblebrox has already pointed out in the workshop discussion some of what I was going to post (the jennifer grey discussion, for example), though I suppose I should note that due to copy pasting discussions back n forth (and at times, just removal), that discussion may need to be read chronologically between the three talk pages (NS's, DC's and mine), using the page history diffs alone. (NS's talk page history would seem to be moved to User talk:Nightscream/Archive 1, with some at User talk:Nightscream/Archive 4.) But I suppose one could start here and read diffs at least through October 20ish 2008. Several people besides me, including Hiding, Emperor, Doczilla, DC, etc., tried to talk with NS (with his responses mostly on their talk pages). It's been years now, has there been a behavioural change in the meantime?
When I had a spare moment, I started trying to better illustrate with diffs, and it just became a point by point lengthy mess which I'm guessing you'd have wanted me to trim anyway. And I just ran out of free time after that.
What also may or may not be of note was how NS seemingly turned on DC. Which surprised me, since DC had noted to me that he had met NS in person previously, and they were friendly. It seemed to surprise DC too, and apparently cooled their subsequent interactions.
I can note this all in some case page/talk page if you like, or you are of course welcome to paste this as well, at your discretion.
And again, my apologies for the late reply. - jc37 08:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, I see that you have posted a comment on the workshop's page; so there's no longer any need to copy your comment. As a side note, I have just posted the proposed decision; if you wish to make comments on that, you are welcome to. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
ChronicalUsual (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki)
Deonis_2012 (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki)
Hasan_Rizvanbegovic (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki)
Kihtnu (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki)
Sopher99 ( talk) 21:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Salvio,
I am concerned that my clarification request may have turned out a little too long. Would it help the arbitrators if I collapsed the long text and summarized the request into a few numbered questions?
Thanks in advance.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk
23:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I have apparently been mentioned in the evidence of this case. I find this odd since I have not edited this article and have had largely limited interaction with the relevant editor or topic area generally. To the extent that I have interacted w EllenCT it has involved removing WP:SYN, commonly after RFC consensus has been established. Not knowing exactly where to respond, I put this information on the Workshop page. If this is not the proper area to respond please tell me and I'll remove it. Thanks in advance for the advice. Capitalismojo ( talk) 18:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Already blocked as a vandalism only account, but if this is not him, I will eat your hat. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Salvio giuliano,
I've left the message below the DS Review page [1], and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen ( talk) 22:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.
She's using her talk page User talk:SuzanneOlsson today simply to attack me. I could reply I guess (see [2]) but it seems to be that this oversteps the reason she is still allowed to use her talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 11:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you serious about vandalism by Administrators......I have a case in hand..how will you tackle this please..... an Administrator constantly engages in a derogatory stance and shows clear bias.... how will you as a person handle this.... are you willing to fight this out..... Is it a challenge that you would like to take.....IndianAnthro 00:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for hatting; I'm glad arbs are telling Nina to make room for others and if you missed my prior remarks, I'm a DS supporter and appreciate the effort everyone is making during the review.
The reason for my note here is to observe that in the section you hatted I did post some mark up text suggesting technical writing improvement to the draft text; I intended no operational changes, just some tweaks to polish the apple on the presentation. I don't care if they get used or not, but I would like them to be actually thought about and not just lost in an editor's verbosity and subsequent hatting. Do you think it appropriate to repost that mark up some place where the clerks can easily find it again for consideration on draft #3? If so, where? As I say, the suggestions strike me as minor wordsmithing in nature. Thanks for thinking about it. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I've placed the comment below on Roger Davies' Talk page under the heading 'Correction to collapsed discussion' and am copying it here because the point is obviously one of vital concern to all arbitrators. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Roger,
Could you please correct this comment you made at [3]:
This is your fourth edit since you were asked to back off yesterday. Whatever benefit there might have been in your contributions has been lost in the - to put it mildly - freeranging nature and inquisitorial tone of your comments. You have singlehandedly provided about half the commentary over the last month, sometimes derailing discussions, stopping others in their tracks, and contributing greatly to bloat. Please now step right back.
Your statement is inaccurate. I made only a single comment after I was told my comments were unwelcome by AGK yesterday, and that comment was made in reply to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Can another editor no longer ask me a question, and receive a reply? The four 'edits' were merely 'fixes' to that single comment, as is obvious from the edit history. Please correct that inaccuracy by removing your statement which implies that I made four separate comments after being told my comments were unwelcome, and which fails to recognize the fact that I was replying to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Your statements that I have 'derailed discussions' or 'stopped others in their tracks' are also both inaccurate. I have never done that, nor have you provided an example of either. I have merely raised questions, and in almost every single case an administrator, either you, AGK, or Salvio has abruptly shut down any discussion of the questions I have raised. The questions I've raised are valid ones. Perhaps they seem 'inquisitorial' to you and to other administrators because you are committed to discretionary sanctions and you cannot look at them from the point of view of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who find DS strange, unjust, and harmful to the project.
Also your own comments which you later added to that section directly contradict the information provided to me by Robert McClenon, so why has Salvio been permitted to collapse the discussion with the comment 'Asked and answered' when the question obviously hasn't been answered? You state unequivocally earlier in the discussion that I was the only one ('one notable exception') who didn't understand the difference between the powers exercised by administrators in DS and in non-DS situations, and Salvio rudely told me that my question had been answered before, and that I was exhibiting 'supine ignorance'. The discussion now shows I was clearly not the only one who didn't understand the difference, since your later comment completely contradicts the explanation of the difference given by Robert McClenon. It is not healthy for Wikipedia when even an experienced editor like Robert McClenon obviously doesn't understand the difference between the powers, and when you have to tell Robert that his explanation is completely wrong, and when no Wikipedia editor can find anywhere on Wikipedia a clear difference and distinction between the powers. The only way to fix this is to set out on the DS project page a clear explanation of the difference between the powers of arbitrators, the powers of administrators in DS situations, and the power of administrators in non-DS situations. At present the differences are completely blurred, and no Wikipedia editor has access to a clear statement of what an administrator is actually authorized to do in DS situations as opposed to non-DS situations, or how the powers of administrators differ from those of arbitrators. Robert McClenon stated that administrators in DS-sitations have been given 'arbitrator-like powers'. By what authority has this happened, since administrators were not elected to be arbitrators? This blurring of powers, the refusal to clearly set out for the benefit of all Wikipedia editors the differences between the powers exercised by arbitrators, administrators in DS situations and administrators in non-DS situations, and the handing over of arbitrators' powers to administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not healthy for Wikipedia, nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above).
:) Drmies ( talk) 19:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Salvio, I've struck the note I left the clerks in the recent case request. I should have paid more attention to the wording of your decline. I hope you will accept my apologies for what was an error of judgement on my part. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Salvio there is an email to the arbcom list waiting for moderator approval that was sent on February 28. -- Pine ✉ 07:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Salvio : Just thought that I'd share a few comments regarding your posting :
As you may read, one editor after reverting my edits, refuses to discuss the reasons, writing: "You are parroting the same thing over and over again. I am unwilling now to continue repeating myself." I am not sure if I may start now WP:AE. Any suggestions ? -- Robertiki ( talk) 16:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — 10.4.1.125 ( talk) 00:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)