![]() | This 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. |
![]() |
Archives |
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 24 | 11 June 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 02:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've replied back. Acalamari 16:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want to give a good argument for why Tor proxies are good in general, go ahead. You may well convince some people. Personally, I didn't know much about them or think much of them one way or the other, before your RfA. I suspect the same is true of lots of people.
If you want to explain why you personally need them, or use them, that's great, that's what the question was about. But if you keep avoiding the question and instead try to turn this into an attack on Jayjg, you will turn a lot of people against you.
Think of how Acalamari nominated you. "CharlotteWebb is very civil, and she is also a very calm user, not one to get upset easily or anything like that." Keeping your cool is an important part of being an admin, which is why Acalamari emphasized it so much. You're not doing that.
Think of what you, yourself wrote: "Yes, but first, can explain why you have invaded my privacy twice, first by obtaining this information, and again by publicly revealing it?" That could have been phrased a lot better, but in any case, Jayjg has now explained. Your turn. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I thought this was an interesting topic, so I entered a discussion here [1] Uncle uncle uncle 00:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
On your RFA, I assumed that you would have no problem soft-blocking TOR nodes (thus enforcing policy). If I am wrong, please indicate that somewhere, and I shall strike my comments. Gracenotes T § 18:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Another industrious checkuser has taken it upon himself to identify and block every IP address I have used in the last three months. I know this because I have read the block logs and noticed that several of the IPs blocked as part of this spree have (oh, shit!) nothing to do with the Tor network. For obvious reasons it would be foolish of me to say which is which, though I don't doubt everything about me will be revealed soon enough. It's so refreshing to know that my privacy is in such safe, competent hands!
This looks and smells like an unannounced de facto ban from the English Wikipedia (one having nothing to do with my behavior). Because of the heightened level of surveillance I'm under, any further edits I make from this account will only have a denial-of-service effect on myself and any other legitimate users of the Tor network. So, all I can say is I hope to meet you all again in the future when I feel safer.
If anybody's wondering, no, I'm not in China. I don't speak Chinese, though I do have some Asian-American ancestry. I've never set foot in China. I see no point in lying about this, but as far as I'm concerned, the thought that a potential stalker might embark on a wild goose chase through the PRC amuses me to no end.
I would like to thank everyone who voiced their support for me, especially those who did so even amid the fear, uncertainty, and doubt raised by the opposers.
I'd like to express specific gratitude to the supporters whom I admire the most for their tireless contributions to Wikipedia and their firmer grasp of our project's basic goals (to build a vast, free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not to play politics in a virtual fish tank), those who less frequently bother to even participate in RFAs, those from whom I least expected to hear a vote of confidence, those who may be controversial in their own right, those willing to risk their own credibility in an effort to salvage mine, those whose sentiments most closely mirror my own:
I don't have any hope that it will pass but I see no reason to close it early, considering the gravity of the underlying issues. Thank you and may God bless all. — CharlotteWebb 07:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for replying on this. Could you say more about why you wer using Tor, and whether or not you were aware of the policy against using it? Thanks,
William Pietri
19:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I have initiated a request for arbitration here. Your input is appreciated. Kamryn Matika 19:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the RfA has a chance of passing. And while I don't agree with anonymity by administrators, if it does pass you could work toward allowing anonymity in some circumstances. As far as explaining the use of proxies, I think the people who are demanding it don't understand that the explanation itself might be to revealing - you might say something to that effect. Anyway, good luck. Fourdee 00:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you edit at all now? Voice-of-All 22:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 25 | 18 June 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 08:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I did some follow up on your statement above that someone went on a spree and blocked all of your IPs, even non-Tor ones. (Note - this required me to run a checkuser on you) Long story short - you are right that someone did indeed go on a spree. I think, though, given the sheer number of IPs you've used (over 400) the non-TOR ones were accidental. If you email me a list of Non-TOR Ips you've used (go to my userpage and click email-this-user), I'll see to it that they are unblocked (and if you don't want me to do it myself, I can privately ask another admin to do it quietly). Raul654 19:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I look forward to voting a year from now in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WilburThePig. Let's hope we've all learned something by then. Yechiel Man 08:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
R--can you explain how the checkusering of CharlotteWeb was not inappropriate?
According to meta:
"The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects. The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)."
If Jayig noticed a problem a while ago, he should have raised it then. Instead, he noticed and did nothing until the Rfa--call that applying pressue, call that political control, call it what you want, but Jayig either did think that damage was being done and failed to act, or he didn't think that damage was being done and abused the checkuser tool.
In addition, he released the information publically. Why and how is this ok? Miss Mondegreen talk 08:39, June 21 2007 (UTC)
After all the abuse you've suffered, why create a new account and suffer more? Why not just leave Wikipedia for good? -- 59.189.58.87 11:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words above. If your mind isn't made up and you'd like some advice from someone who has also been targeted, mine is that you take Raul's offer and keep this account. There's no sense in starting over, especially when you would not necessarily be exempt from being targeted under the new account. Your RfA did reasonably well and you have a strong chance of passing a new one in a few months, particularly if you give up proxy usage or offer a good explanation for it (perhaps you've done that already and I didn't notice it). Everyking 05:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I've renominated the template for deletion. Let's push this template thru to deletion, and get as many of your like minded friends to vote. [3] 199.126.28.20 03:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about your failed RFA. Good luck! Politics rule 04:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 26 | 25 June 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 07:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 27 | 2 July 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 07:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 28 | 9 July 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 07:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 29 | 16 July 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 19:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee notes that CharlotteWebb remains a user in good standing, and is welcome to return to editing at any time. Jayjg is reminded to to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 30 | 23 July 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 06:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you keep removing Quadell's statement? SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 06:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there; I noticed that your comment stated "I'm not even comfortable with the user being an Admin. yet". Could you elaborate? I'm always looking to improve, and I'm interested in what made you say that.
Cheers,
Anthøny
22:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Was this a mistake? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I clicked "save" and then I got the "make a donation" screen, then I clicked "back" and then clicked "save" again because I thought the edit had failed. Apparently I had clicked "edit" before those other comments were made. I think the edit conflict was properly avoided on the first attempt but not on the second one. — CharlotteWebb 00:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I've sent one to you. :) Acalamari 00:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 31 | 30 July 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 23:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, El on ka 04:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 32 | 6 August 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 08:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there; I noticed that your comment stated "I'm not even comfortable with the user being an Admin. yet". Could you elaborate? I'm always looking to improve, and I'm interested in what made you say that.
Cheers,
Anthøny
22:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 33 | 13 August 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 20:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 34 | 20 August 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 04:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 35 | 27 August 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 05:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Were you the same CharlotteWebb that talked to me on irc today? Osias 18:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
That's awesome! Or is it just to leave one comment? Melsaran ( talk) 16:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't know what you're talking about but it is good to see you back. Does this mean we will be seeing you around again? JoshuaZ 17:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see you back again, even if only for a little while. Acalamari 21:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page. There are good reasons for the killer's info box, and you simply wiped it out without discussion. Rklawton ( talk) 18:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Charlotte, welcome back! I saw your name pop up on Elonka's RfA (I have it watchlisted but I haven't decided if I will participate). I hope you're well. -- Kyok o 19:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You are requesting this recall. He's decided to use User:Mercury/Recall as the page for processing the request. I know you made your request for recall on his talk page before this opened up. Could you be so kind as to add there (either by diff to the original request or a current description) your reasons for requesting recall? Thanks. GRBerry 22:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in my RfA, and your thoughtful questions. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. For now though, especially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions, I am going to take it slowly -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, though I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good New Year, -- El on ka 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I reverted this, use talk pages. Regards, Mercury at 10:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello CharlotteWebb, I've granted your account rollback rights, as I trust you completely for using it to revert vandalism only. You may want to read Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you don't want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 18:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed it, and thought that what I changed it to was what you intended, so you are most welcome. Dreamy § 21:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've answered your questions in my RfA. Cheers, L A X 22:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for participating in my RfA! | |
Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale ( talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.-- MONGO 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse ( talk) 04:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Melesse (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Please don't do it again, OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.236.12.146 ( talk) 19:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
OK...It's true, but how do I cite an on-air mention? This is a brand-new story going around DC, and I think it's interesting and worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.29.176.65 ( talk) 19:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Charlotte, this was posted right after you edited the Seresin RfA. Just in case you missed it, not sure it will change your view at all. Avruch talk 22:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
|
Cases stay on RFAR for 7 days if they are not accepted. While this was about ready for archiving, you just removed it without archiving. The arb clerks normally handle removing and archiving. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)