User talk:Mr rnddude/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~

Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!

Hello, Mr rnddude! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 21:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Thanks Linguist111, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you too. Or as they say in my language; Sretan božic i sretna nova godina. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Re-ping due fail. Sorry bout that Linguist111. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Mr rnddude: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Mona778 (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thanks for the holiday cheer Mona778, happy holidays and good tides to you too. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

RfA

Hi. I appreciate your efforts with MartinZ02 but a 14 year old kid who is not even a native speaker will probably struggle with it. Best would probably be to help keep an eye on his logs and impress upon him that he is not ready for any kind of maintenance or back-office work. Best wishes for the coming holidays, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Kudpung, I am not entirely sure what you are referring to. I haven't commented to MartinZ02 about their votes since RickinBaltimore's RfA several months ago at the start of November. I get the feeling you read "PlatypusofDooms" comment and attributed it to me. They forgot to sign and said basically exactly what I labouriously tried to explain to Martin a while ago. The comment I am referring to is the "24 FA" criterai comment at Ad Orientem's RfA. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your comment I was referring to was [this one] but because the vote on Ad Orientem is so recent I didn't immediately realise that your message was already well over a month ago. Which also raises my suspicion that he doesn't even read his talk page. BTW, "PlatypusofDoom" is another younger user who while probably doing everything in good faith gets a lot of things wrong and not always too pleasantly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I see what happened now. Your talk page stopped loading at those earlier discussions and I thought they were the most recent. There is something wrong with the syntax on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I know what you're referring to now. That was in the course of RickinBaltimore's RfA. Martin's votes are taking on an obvious pattern, in my view, now. They pick up on the "user right's" and oppose RfA's on the basis of some user right being included in the admin tools. Refer to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Boson and their oppose on the grounds that Boson has no template editing experience. I'm not entirely sure whether they are actively looking for a reason to oppose, or, if they require that non-admins gain all the tools available to non-admins that are included in the admin package before they apply at RfA. I've noticed previously that PlatypusofDoom has stronger than necessary language; This is nuts is one of their more recent edit summaries. It's not a particularly useful contribution. Also, what's happened to the synatx on my talk page? Oh and I just realized my talk page has grown a bit unwieldy at 220k bytes, I'll go get myself an archiver to store the old discussions. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

There is something very wrong between the two Xmas wishes templates. It's my guess someone has tried to send you a wish template and has forgotten some curly brackets somewhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It's something to do with the message from Linguist111. It may also possibly be missing opening or closing <div></div> tags, but I can't see where. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been looking at the two templates myself. I don't see any missing curly brackets or div issues either. Is <br><br> a problem? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies about the template, something's gone wrong with it. I'll try and sort it out. Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 09:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged Linguist111. Don't worry too much if you can't fix it, feel free to repost the template if necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

If you go to the template's page you can see what it looks like now. I've shrunk it. Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 11:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Season's Greetings!

Ho Ho Ho! You've been visited by the Christmas Trout. Don't panic! Someone is just wishing you a happy holiday season and a wonderful New Year!

AlexEng^(TALK) 05:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks AlexEng. Merry Christmas to you too. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and prosperity. I'd like to wish you happy holidays and a happy new year. May 2017 bring you prosperity and joy. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Holiday cheer Mirela. Have a good one, Mr rnddude (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Hi

Thanks, but you are a bit too quick or I am a bit too slow (I had to go feed some chickens and turtles, not even kidding). I was about to post my carefully crafted WP:LASTWORD. I think it could be seriously helpful to post it, because it makes clear how I perceive the situation, and I am pretty sure it will reduce drama, not encourage it. Would you mind reverting yourself so I can post my WP:LASTWORD (you can close the section after that if you want to, or leave it be, idc)? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The Quixotic Potato, sure all right. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

And done. I'll ignore Slatersteven for now. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

How is that edit reducing drama, it's just repeating the same justification for his name calling? Sorry for "continuing the drama" here, but what the hell? Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I'll let Oshwah respond to Quix regarding their question. Whatever good it does. No problem about the drama. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Military History WikiProject Newcomer of the Year

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For "...[your] efforts in improving Roman military history, like Battle of Antioch (218)", I have the honor of presenting you with this WikiProject Barnstar. For the Military history WikiProject, TomStar81 (Talk) 09:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

TomStar81 thanks for the barnstar and all those who voted. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Donner60's post

Oops. Messed that one up. I thought I had copied Donner60's post and then edited it. Thanks for catching that. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem Jim1138 Mr rnddude (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Mr rnddude!

Happy New Year!

Mr rnddude,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Still working on the messages; I have interacted in some way with more people than I thought I had when I started placing these. In any event, have a happy New Year. Donner60 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Pings

Don't worry about pinging the wrong name. I turned on email notifications for my main account, and I've set up rules to forward them to my cellphone during the day when I'm at work. :) I meant to say this in the ANI thread but for some reason I just brain farted. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

MPants at work, ah that explains a lot. I have my preferences set so that I receive a notification each time I ping. I was told in the notification that it was successful, that must have been to your other account. Though, you received it anyway via phone. Cheers for the note, Mr rnddude (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Call me dishonest

and you'll get is straight back. Your pathetic attempt at backsliding - Suffice it to say I meant "not truthful" rather than "calculated lying". Poor choice to use disingenous [sic] which declares deliberate motive to deceive.- instead of apologising - got what is deserved. Leaky Caldron 17:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Leaky caldron I'm happy to have a chat about it, but guess what, I still don't think you were being entirely truthful. Deliberately? I dunno it's not my place to impugn your motives. That was the whole extent of my backslide, to not impugn your motive. "As you say AGF". You think I believe you were being candid and couldn't admit it and apologize? nope, your first comment stripped away all my AGF, I had to restock afterward. I pulled back for one reason and one reason only; cause Ritchie doesn't need me dramatizing it. I'll gladly give you a thorough overview of why I think your first comment was just awful (the only reason a 'crat intervened was you threatening to make it dramatic) and your second comment an attempt at capitalizing on Ritchie's extension of the olive branch. You tried to make it dramatic right off the bat, threatening it even; diffuse the potential drama here. Hell you've brought the drama here. Now I have a question for you; why make it dramatic immediately, no chill, 0 to 100 instantly? If you can give me a solid reason for it, then maybe you'd get an apology for "disingenuous" till then you already know what I think, just not why I think it. I do regret enflaming it though, you have my sincerest apologies for that. No seriously, you do. Now, if you have something further to say, my talk page is available to anyone for anything. I don't remove comments, practically ever except to archives. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a very long version and there is a short version. I'll give you the shortest version. I assume you accept the notion that RfA is a civility minefield. In the case in question, this candidate has in the past had serious concerns raised about his performance in his specialist field. Thankfully those issues seem to have subsided to a degree. My question was a follow up, their initial answer to #4 having been muddled & unclear. They had also struggled to answer my other question, #5. Asking questions and assessing answers forms an essential part of the RfA process to establish capability and communication skills. It seems to me very strange that a supporter, admin. and close associate of a co-nominator would think that it was ok to answer in the answer space, a follow-up question intended to obtain a response to a question with which the candidate was struggling. A bit like a teacher filling out the student's difficult question paper. Per WP:ADMINCOND I expect Admins. to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. As far as I am concerned - and I expect a few others - answering a question on behalf of a candidate who one has supported seems to be undue interference. If other watchers saw it the same way it could become disruptive to the candidate's RfA, hence my request to remove it quickly. You are incorrect to imply a threat - there was no retaliatory action promised or even implied. (edit summary "Please remove this. The Candidate must answer himself in his own words") As admitted, the suggestion he made should have been simply added to the discussion general comments section - where it eventually ended up. That is the genesis of it. The rest of it is irrelevant really, other than Ritchie & I discussed it and it was a closed issue until you resurrected it with your inflammatory bit disingenuous charge. For interest, if you can see the exchanges at 11:44:45 for about 45 seconds [1]. I'm not saying those rules apply, but the word means the same. It isn't possible to be a "bit" disingenuous. So, Ritchie had already accepted he put the answer in the wrong place and you have now conceded that you inflamed the situation. What did I do wrong? Ask a follow-up question, expect the candidate to answer it for himself and then express how I felt about interference in my question and defend myself against your unwarranted PA. I was quite wrong to misrepresent your user-name and I offer a sincere apology which I have reflected in that discussion. Leaky Caldron 15:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Leaky caldron; What did I do wrong?, I'll answer (despite the rhetorical nature of the question) but you might want to consider asking Ritchie as well, since the comments I took issue with were addressed to Ritchie, and it's quite possible I read them entirely differently to them. The only thing I think you did wrong; was fail to recognize that Ritchie was responding in good faith and not to undermine you, your question, or your position. I had a larger context to draw upon, this included your comments, questions, and oppose vote(s). Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678 - I fear, personally, that he will seek retribution for past disputes with me by finding an excuse to sanction me. I don't have much of a context for this comment but it struck as being a symptom that I translated to Ritchie's comments. A fundamental lack of AGF. Again, I think your response was 0 to 100. There is, in my honest opinion, a stark contrast between "please move your comments somewhere more appropriate" (example phrasing) and "get out of my questions, and stay out" + "I expect the CANDIDATE to answer MY question, your 2p is unwanted and unhelpful" (example paraphrase of my interpretation of your comments). I figure the all-caps CANDIDATE and MY wasn't meant to be yelling, but, I read it as such. You were well within your rights to ask Ritchie to move the comment elsewhere and ping you to it. Though whether that could have been conveyed less forcefully and without the suggestion of drama is a matter of opinion. My biggest issue with AGF stems from the "potential drama" comment which to me as a person who patrols many pages and admin noticeboards is basically a dog whistle that someone intends to take action if the other person does not comply; i.e. report it to the admins/drama boards. Case by case, that fails more often than succeeds. It was exacerbated by; Please stay out of my RfA questions in future - or find a more suitable place to add your 2p. Thanks. You never know, the most suitable place for Ritchie's 2p may be one of your questions since both your questions targeted nominators comments specifically and Ritchie regularly noms other editors for the position of admin. Creating drama though does not seem to have been your intent.
Off-topic but related; If you do it again to my questions in RfA I'll delete it - what if they are a/the nominator and you're questioning their nominating statement as you did in both Q4 and 5 of Cyber's RfA? You had no issue with WJBscribe answering Q5 for Cyber, or at least, none that you conveyed. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it was clear where I pointed out that Richie was "neither the candidate or the nom." Only they should answer questions. I told the candidate that I was not concerned about the past when he attempted to answer Q5 so that stuff is now quite irrelevant 2 years later. You are correct that there is more background - but that is not relevant now - it was at the time. I thanked the nominator for providing the info. requested and received thanks for "keeping the noms. honest!" All perfectly civil. I think you are over-analysing, but if you are suggesting that I was extremely annoyed and allowed feelings to be conveyed in the messages that would be correct. Of course we could all re-write our exact words with hindsight - it is actually what all 3 of us have done there. I maintain that it was an unintelligent thing to do and left unchanged would set a very poor example. The follow-up about being a support vote better than "hell yeah" still makes zero sense to me as I do not understand any of the BOT stuff Ritchie was describing. If it helped you make an !vote that's fine, but it was not the candidate's answer. I do not see the connection between someone answering for the candidate and then supporting the candidate based on an answer that they did not give - but that is entirely your decision, obviously. Leaky Caldron 17:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Leaky caldron; Ritchie's explanation of how Cyber might make a bot capable of admin work clarified the issue for me about why we need one in the first place. I am not well versed in any sort of programming, let alone with three decades of IT experience. So I was left a bit stranded as to how giving a bot developer admin tools would make their contributions more useful. Nor have I ever encountered a bot that requires admin tools, even now I can't think of any specific ones. I saw no reason to believe Cyber would participate in UAA and AIV since they have practically no experience in these departments. I wasn't going to support a candidate for additionally I might reasoning. For example, Cluebot goes around reverting vandalism, something I am familiar with and doesn't require admin tools. Up until this RfA I was under the impression that bots did not perform admin tasks; blocks, deletion, etc. One point that Ritchie made is that template protected pages can only be edited by admin bots, assuming that's correct, cyberbot would need "admin status" in order to maintain and update User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report were it to be template protected. It's not for the time being, but, that might only be due to Cyber not being an admin. Xeno immediately placed a semi-protect due to the attack by an IP vandal on the page. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see Ritchie place template editor restrictions on it if Cyber's RfA passes. For that matter, Cyber provided the only example of an admin bot that I know of and it's inactive; User:7SeriesBOT. I don't quite like the "I might do this and that" approach that Cyber has taken, but, I don't see their having the tools being a net negative to the project that would justify me opposing their candidacy. You have better knowledge of this and thus, as you stated, your industry experience impacts on your decision. If Cyber had a thorough plan of what their admin work would include, I'd appreciate that, but again, I don't know much of anything about admin bots and am thus squarely in the dark about the intricacies of the issue. I guess you could argue that's as much Cyber's fault for being vague as anything, but, I quite liked Ritchie's example. Cyber bot takes over from other bots, I see it taking over admin tasks from inactive bots in the near future. As far as I can tell, that is a net positive to the project.
I think it was clear where I pointed out that Richie was "neither the candidate or the nom." Only they should answer questions - I meant in future RfA's such as the very recent Primfac2 candidacy which Ritchie was a nominator.
[I]t is actually what all 3 of us have done there - yes, agreed. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If Ritchie noms and deems that help with questions is needed that is entirely up to him. WBJs helped with my Q#5. It was the Co-noms'. statement that admin. tools would help with BOT work that urged me to ask "why?" and Cyber initially did not provide a very clear answer. In a previous RfA they talked about Admin Bots which caused some concern at the time. Maybe the co-nominator's should actually understand the candidate's field better before making statements that even the candidate find difficult to stand up. Leaky Caldron 20:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You really should enable email

I have one that I made exclusively for Wikipedia use. You don't need to disclose any personal information to receive emails. I don't normally expect off-wiki replies from Wikipedians I email (except those whose emails I already know), and I'm pretty sure most Wikipedians who might want to email you are the same.

As to why I want you to be email-able, I can't reply to you directly on ANI because of this. In the interim, just know that I have read your comment and appreciated it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been meaning to create one for Wikipedia use, and have done so now. You're welcome to e-mail me whenever, I believe [2] this is where you go to send an e-mail? since I haven't used it before. Cheers, Hijiri88. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

New Mailing List

Hello! You are receiving this message because you have added yourself as a member of the Roman and Byzantine Milhist Project. This is the first such message, however we hope that this can be used to coordinate editing and development of articles later down the road. If you wish to opt out of further messages, please remove yourself from here. 05:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict

That must have been an edit conflict, my apologies Fram (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Fram, none required but thank you anyway. I figured that had to be the case as you were posting on an unrelated thread. Thank you for your time, apologies if I was slightly abrasive, I was dealing with an offensive comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No problem! Fram (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto

I didn't act earlier because I didn't notice the remark and reverts earlier. I have the page on my watchlist (I have nominated a subpage for deletion last week, and had it on my watchlist before that), and happened to look at what the many edits were about. I then noticed Cassianto's reinstatement of the PA (for which I blocked). I also warned Davey2010 on his talk page for his previous reverts. I didn't warn Giano for his original comment, which I probably should have done, but which was too old to take action on anyway (in my opinion). So it's not "as long as it's not Cassianto making the personal attacks, people are free to make insensitive comments as they please. ", but "as long as I am not aware of PAs, I can hardly warn or block for them". Fram (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

You know Fram, I believe you. I spent a good hour looking at the whole thing, and yes, what you are saying fits the story. Sure, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that you were not aware of the comment when it was first made or Davey's edits to the comment and arrived on the scene after Cass' edit. In fact, you were not active between 18:14 Jan 30 and 04:29 Jan 31 when this whole thing happened. However, if you were interested in what was going on why would you give a superificial review of the events? you looked at one diff as far as I can tell. Giano's comment was the subject of an edit war between three editors and an IP which might belong to one of those editors. You should have stopped to look at everything before acting. The IP came two days after the comment was made to place the template, it was already stale by that point. It should have been left alone from the beginning. The person to whom the comment was directed had not complained nor requested the comment to be redacted. That is sufficient enough alone in my view to have just left it be. I do not think a one month block is appropriate. This was not Cass' comment, it was a stale comment, and the person it was directed had expressed no qualms about it - actually they even apologized in response to it. Though, all of that could be said of each individual editor. The IP should have left it alone and not templated, Davey should have left it alone when the IP did template, Mr Ernie should have left it alone when Davey removed the template (twice), and Cass should have left it alone when Mr Ernie retemplated. There's a significant amount of tangential history on that page; Cass and Mr Ernie had a dispute on that page several days prior. This is a situation where each action was actionable, (except maybe the IP's first edit, the second was a threat). I think no action would have been preferred. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The IP did not belong to me. Why would I use an IP for an action I have no problem making under my username? I also wouldn't label my interactions with Cassianto as a dispute, but par for the course. If you care to look back through our history you will find I have never initiated a contact with him (other than supporting a block on his user page, which was deleted) - he's always been the one to respond to a comment of mine, with his usual incivility. I prefer to put this behind me, and I have no intention to interact with Cassianto again. I do, however, have an opposing viewpoint than him generally regarding infoboxes, and I still intend to weigh in on infobox matters if I feel strongly enough. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Mr Ernie Sorry for reverting, I am not trying to stoke the flames any further, but, thought I'd respond quickly to a couple points. 1. Regarding the IP, it could have belonged to anyone or no-one. Though AGF'ing of course entails presuming honesty when you deny it being yours. 2. I did a skim of the template page's history and noticed only the back and forth between the two of you. I used "dispute" because I didn't have an alternate term for it. 3. Finally, for all intents and purposes you're allowed to comment on any discussion happening anywhere on the encyclopaedia unless that would violate an I/P/TBAN or some other sanction. That is regardless of whether you agree or disagree with anyone in particular. I am just as often on the minority side of discussions as the majority. I respond to GF comments and questions that are directed to me, and try to avoid commenting elsewhere unless I think I am contributing something positive or useful - whether or not it backfires is mostly dependent on who I respond to than it is on what I respond with. So, to be honest, I just avoid some people because I see no positives to interacting with them. I am not one to hold grudges and can generally respond to anyone as necessary. I mention this because the infobox wars are often spiteful - though not entirely without reason. I don't think they're worth the time it takes to deal with in my opinion, and my first involvement was I think my last. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Special:Diff/763266794

Hello.It don't seem to be vandalism, can you look? I'l soon undo the you'r action. 95.49.109.205 (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Observation, I think, is the best term here.

The Quixotic Potato, Slatersteven is well aware of what happened at your AN/I case, they are the person who filed it. I mention this because of this discussion on your talk page and more specifically your last comment; if you really want to know what actually happened then you'll have to spend a lot of time finding the diffs and reading them. Which, given they were part of the discussion from before the start (last comment pre-AN/I) to after the finish (the aforementioned discussion), is not likely to be the case. I'm guessing that either you didn't notice, forgot, or chose to ignore it altogether in favour of mutual discussion. I can't really know. I just thought you ought to know that the person you're talking should be acutely aware of ... well most of it I suppose. I did notice something new while looking for the diffs. I realize now that Motsebboh is another editor on Wikipedia and not a personality elsewhere. What was this comment about? it seems both a little on and a little off. From my reading of his several comments before yours he was seriously keen on getting the RfC to pass, but, he didn't bring up anything other than several criticisms of the SPLC. I don't know much bout the SPLC beyond that they focus on hate groups and racism. Your prerogative on whether you want to answer the question or not, it was very tangential to main point of this comment, and just struck me as a little bit odd to bring them into it. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No, Slatersteven is not aware of everything that happened related to that AN/I case, I am more than 99.99999999% sure that Slatersteven is not on 8chan. If Slatersteven wants to then Slatersteven can search all the diffs and read everything, but that would take quite a while. It is old news by now, but there was a discussion on 8chan and an old 4chan raid channel about the wiki article about SPLC. I made some 8channers mad because I requested page protection, that ultimately led to me being blocked. But if you really want the full story then it started even before that, roughly three months ago, and it includes some offwiki stuff that I probably can't mention onwiki. As you can probably imagine I had a reason to keep an eye on that IRC channel, this wasn't the first time they attempted to influence Wikipedia. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The Quixotic Potato I meant regarding the on-wiki stuff; AN/I, several user talk pages, and logs. Anything off-wiki I am entirely clueless on. Anything you can't mention on-wiki you can off-wiki. I don't know anything about the 4chan and 8chan stuff you're mentioning here though. This is entirely news to myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

What happened of site it irrelevant to his actions here (and no The Quixotic Potato was not blocked over the PA, you were blocked over the harassment, even if they posted on 8chan it was harassment here to bang on about your warning (which is all the PA earned you)).Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Slatersteven doesn't know what happened, which explains why he reacts like this. I can't even blame him, because he would respond differently if he knew the whole story. You have discovered the tip of the iceberg. I assume you have read my userpage, so you know what my political POV is. I am a feminist and I hate extremists (e.g. antisemites and islamophobes). Long story short: I annoyed some racist gamergaters on 8chan, they were talking about the SPLC article and I requested protection for the article. I had to deal with a lot of idiots and I did that successfully for a while until I got pissed off and didn't have enough patience to deal with people who judge quickly and harshly without informing themselves, and so I ended up blocked instead of getting a barnstar. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You got blocked for not dropping your complaint about a mild rebuke, not for being some warrior protecting Wikipedia form trolling (if you have evidence this occurred raise it in an ANI, I will support you). I really do not understand how you misunderstand what you were blocked for.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I have already posted quite a lot of evidence on Wikipedia, including links to 8chan, archive.org, archive.is and webcitation.org (and screenshots on imgur)... Can you please stop talking about this stuff now? Please drop your stick, like I asked you to. If you continue talking about this subject then I will ignore you.

@rnddude If you need any more information then you can email me. People ping me and use my talkpage to talk about old stale drama, and then they can accuse me of not dropping a stick... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

NO, as I think you (I think) are making a serious allegation. Are you saying that users off site conspired to vandalize or alter a pages POV?Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As some serious allegations of an offsite conspiracy have been made I have launched an ani. If talk is correct it is clear something needs to be done. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I go watch one episode of Family Guy and return to this. Nah it's entirely ok, I let people use my user talk page to post comments as they wish. Slatersteven, off-wiki conspiracies to vandalize pages happen surprisingly often. These are not entirely knew things to bring up. I'd point to Breitbart as an example of this indeed happening; after the 2016 Portland shooting Breitbart wrote an article accusing Wikipedia of bias in failing to name it as a terrorist incident and requested it's readers to counter this bias (or some such similar story, I was heavily involved in handling the SPA's but never read the actual article that instigated the SPA storm - there was indeed many SPA's on that page). Now, I think it's important to note that The Quixotic Potato has not accused anybody of having specifcally contributed to this. It would be an entirely different matter if Quix had said so and so was doing this, rather than simply stating that an off-wiki collaboration did happen. For that matter, Quix, yes I am entirely aware that you're on the political left and a social liberal. I have read your user page with the many quotes, some were quite funny, others quite interesting, and a few I couldn't read due to language barriers. I do include additional context and explanations for things that happen when they are provided. I'm more or less in favour of letting people go bout their business so will drop the stick here. Observation; I am about 99% sure that you both have my talk page watchlisted, so my pings are a bit moot. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Then you would be wrong, I do not (but I do have a contributions page that tells me when I am not the last person to edit a page). I will make that my last comment on this mater here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 17:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok then. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Email

No worries mate. Thank you, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)