| Revision as of 20:48, 15 July 2007 editOldwindybear (talk | contribs)5,177 edits the bottom line is simple: these accusations are outright lies, period.← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:03, 16 July 2007 edit undoNew England (talk | contribs)3,272 edits →NominationNext edit → | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
| :This has gotten a bit out of hand. Although it may be tangentially relevant if Oldwindybear is nominating Tom in an effort to help him help wikipedia after Tom helped oldwindybear help wikipedia, it doesn't matter nearly as much as, say, whether Tom is a good admin candidate. Let's go back to discussing the real question and stop arguing about this minor side issue, please.--] - ] 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | :This has gotten a bit out of hand. Although it may be tangentially relevant if Oldwindybear is nominating Tom in an effort to help him help wikipedia after Tom helped oldwindybear help wikipedia, it doesn't matter nearly as much as, say, whether Tom is a good admin candidate. Let's go back to discussing the real question and stop arguing about this minor side issue, please.--] - ] 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::I am sorry, but the bottom line is simple: '''I did not ever, in any form, say that I nominated TomStar81 for any reason other than I felt he should be an admin'''. i was startled to find out he was not, frankly, as the page shows. '''I certainly never said, in any way, that I nominated him for reformatting Stillstudying's nomination. Those are totally false accusations.''' I don't feel this matter is appropriate for the nomination page, because they are totally false accusations which, as was noted correctly, raises issues not related to the nomination. He said himself - which is why I stopped discussing it there - that arguing about it called attention to false charges. Stillstudying not only made the original nomination, but shepherded it through the process! You will find he said, among other things, at that "That level of trust is what will make him a great admin, and why I nominated him. ''Stillstudying 18:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)''" Nor was that his only statement on his nomination of me! Yet this user continues to make totally false and unfounded accusations.] 20:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | :::I am sorry, but the bottom line is simple: '''I did not ever, in any form, say that I nominated TomStar81 for any reason other than I felt he should be an admin'''. i was startled to find out he was not, frankly, as the page shows. '''I certainly never said, in any way, that I nominated him for reformatting Stillstudying's nomination. Those are totally false accusations.''' I don't feel this matter is appropriate for the nomination page, because they are totally false accusations which, as was noted correctly, raises issues not related to the nomination. He said himself - which is why I stopped discussing it there - that arguing about it called attention to false charges. Stillstudying not only made the original nomination, but shepherded it through the process! You will find he said, among other things, at that "That level of trust is what will make him a great admin, and why I nominated him. ''Stillstudying 18:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)''" Nor was that his only statement on his nomination of me! Yet this user continues to make totally false and unfounded accusations.] 20:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::My "original false accusation" was that: "it seems a little weird that Oldwindybear nominated you soon after you nominated him." You may say he simply reformatted another users nomination, but by singning the page with his name he nominated you. The next "lie I fabricated" is that I'm accusing you two of conspiring together. Nowhere at all did I say that, but I did say that you only nominated him because of the way he handled your RFA (in other words, had you not ran into TomStar on your RFA, you wouldn't have decided him not being an andmin was a disservice to the community). Furthermore, you do not have the right to block because you dislike my comments at your buddies RFA, being a Sysop doesn't let you carry a big stick. If you accuse me of making personal attacks, you have no right to make them on me as you did here (, , and ). You still are giving my comment too much credit, there have been no opposes "per New England" ''']''' 01:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:03, 16 July 2007
Category talk: 1 Category: 1 Image talk: 4 Image: 925 Mainspace 5686 Portal talk: 11 Portal: 14 Talk: 737 Template talk: 16 Template: 73 User talk: 832 User: 1642 Misplaced Pages talk: 186 Misplaced Pages: 1298 avg edits per page 3.95 earliest 23:29, 3 September 2004 number of unique pages 2894 total 11426 2004/9 177 2004/10 512 2004/11 165 2004/12 114 2005/1 259 2005/2 305 2005/3 394 2005/4 264 2005/5 232 2005/6 112 2005/7 297 2005/8 335 2005/9 399 2005/10 255 2005/11 220 2005/12 608 2006/1 539 2006/2 488 2006/3 299 2006/4 256 2006/5 360 2006/6 383 2006/7 422 2006/8 191 2006/9 357 2006/10 293 2006/11 357 2006/12 402 2007/1 412 2007/2 356 2007/3 501 2007/4 226 2007/5 342 2007/6 277 2007/7 317
Edit count as of 21:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC) —Anas
Nomination
- New England I don't mean to argue, but you are incorrect that Tom nominated me. He did the work in rearranging a nomination that was made by Stillstudying - please, this is very upsetting to me that a good candidate is being attacked for being nominated by me when he did not. If you look at the record, all he did was reorganize a nomination that was made by another user, who then lobbied quite hard for me. It is extremely distressing to me that this candidate is being attacked for nominating me, when he did not, all he did was rearrange a nomination that Stillstudying made - if you are going to count this as nomination, then ElinorD nominated Tom, because she helped me with the technical aspects of creating the page - which is what he did for Still. Where has trust gone? Not only is a great user accused of something in being nominated by me, he is accused of something he did not do. old windy bear 05:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry, if you had read my previous statement you would know I am not opposing because of the nomination thing. And the candidate himself has not denied nominating you. New England 13:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- New England I understand, and at the same time, for those not familiar with my nomination, it is important they know that this candidate did not nominate me, and his only connection was to properly format someone else's nomination, Stillstudying's. As to my election, 66 people voted for me, and NONE voted against me, so I don't think there was anything whatsoever controversial in my nomination and election as a sysop. I did notice, in the course of my election, that this candidate, a superbly qualified user, was not a sysop, which I thought was a loss to the community. So I nominated him. But there was nothing whatsoever controversial about my nomination. (nor about my election, the only usual feature of which was that not one single person opposed me) I hope that folks will look at this candidate's superb record, which frankly, is better than mine, (and I was proud of mine!) He warrants our trust. old windy bear 14:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- You read to much into my statements. I never said that your RFA was in any way controversial. And, I never accused you of nominating him as some sort of reward as you mentioned on another users talk page here. I also think that by continually posting long, drawn-out responses to me, you are drawing more attention to my comment than it would have gotten by itself. New England 15:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm posting this reply here because it relates 100% to this RFA. In response to this comment on my talk page you are falsely accusing me of falsely accusing you and the candidate of making an "under-the-table" agreement. I am not accusing you of anything. I would point out though, that TomStar81 did in fact nominate you (whether of not he did it another person doesn't matter---he did call you an "excellent contributor" in his statement). For the record he told you he wasn't an admin in this diff, to which you replied immediately with this comment, then nominated him a few hours later. I also feel I should respond to this comment on StillStudying's talk page. You (incorrectly) accuse me of failing to assume good faith, when you fail to assume it in regards to me. I was merely pointing out the coincidence that occurred with your nomination of TomStar soon after he nominated. And Tom even admitted to laughing when he read that you nominated him, and seems less bothered by my comments then you are. And by your own admission you nominated Tom only because he helped nominate you. New England 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- You read to much into my statements. I never said that your RFA was in any way controversial. And, I never accused you of nominating him as some sort of reward as you mentioned on another users talk page here. I also think that by continually posting long, drawn-out responses to me, you are drawing more attention to my comment than it would have gotten by itself. New England 15:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- New England I understand, and at the same time, for those not familiar with my nomination, it is important they know that this candidate did not nominate me, and his only connection was to properly format someone else's nomination, Stillstudying's. As to my election, 66 people voted for me, and NONE voted against me, so I don't think there was anything whatsoever controversial in my nomination and election as a sysop. I did notice, in the course of my election, that this candidate, a superbly qualified user, was not a sysop, which I thought was a loss to the community. So I nominated him. But there was nothing whatsoever controversial about my nomination. (nor about my election, the only usual feature of which was that not one single person opposed me) I hope that folks will look at this candidate's superb record, which frankly, is better than mine, (and I was proud of mine!) He warrants our trust. old windy bear 14:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry, if you had read my previous statement you would know I am not opposing because of the nomination thing. And the candidate himself has not denied nominating you. New England 13:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- This has gotten a bit out of hand. Although it may be tangentially relevant if Oldwindybear is nominating Tom in an effort to help him help wikipedia after Tom helped oldwindybear help wikipedia, it doesn't matter nearly as much as, say, whether Tom is a good admin candidate. Let's go back to discussing the real question and stop arguing about this minor side issue, please.--Chaser - T 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but the bottom line is simple: I did not ever, in any form, say that I nominated TomStar81 for any reason other than I felt he should be an admin. i was startled to find out he was not, frankly, as the page shows. I certainly never said, in any way, that I nominated him for reformatting Stillstudying's nomination. Those are totally false accusations. I don't feel this matter is appropriate for the nomination page, because they are totally false accusations which, as was noted correctly, raises issues not related to the nomination. He said himself - which is why I stopped discussing it there - that arguing about it called attention to false charges. Stillstudying not only made the original nomination, but shepherded it through the process! You will find he said, among other things, at that "That level of trust is what will make him a great admin, and why I nominated him. Stillstudying 18:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)" Nor was that his only statement on his nomination of me! Yet this user continues to make totally false and unfounded accusations.old windy bear 20:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- My "original false accusation" was that: "it seems a little weird that Oldwindybear nominated you soon after you nominated him." You may say he simply reformatted another users nomination, but by singning the page with his name he nominated you. The next "lie I fabricated" is that I'm accusing you two of conspiring together. Nowhere at all did I say that, but I did say that you only nominated him because of the way he handled your RFA (in other words, had you not ran into TomStar on your RFA, you wouldn't have decided him not being an andmin was a disservice to the community). Furthermore, you do not have the right to block because you dislike my comments at your buddies RFA, being a Sysop doesn't let you carry a big stick. If you accuse me of making personal attacks, you have no right to make them on me as you did here (1, 2, and 3). You still are giving my comment too much credit, there have been no opposes "per New England" New England 01:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)