This is an archive of past discussions with User:TreasuryTag. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone turns up at the RD and asks a question about a privacy related issue. Bugs, in his wisdom, decides to have at the questioner, along the lines of "what are you up to and why do you need to know", and then presumably having decided that he'd not been as offensive as he could be, sticks an {{SPA}} on the question. So first, {{SPA}} is normally used in, for instance, AfDs to suggest that the user may be a sock. Second, why on earth would anyone delberately shine a torch right in the face of someone asking a privacy related question - which is what {{SPA}} somewhat does, in that it invites users to inspect what we know of the OP - his history, &c. So, yeah, I mean every word of my edit summary. There's more at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Anonymous purchasing help. But I'm calm now... --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you! Western Pines (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know ... this ^^^^ guy has now been blocked indef as a  Confirmed sock of South Bay (talk · contribs). I don't know what that guy is playing at (trolling, obv.) but I've blocked the main account for another month - Alison ^❤ 09:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This was an error. I've fixed it. Cheers. --John (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks for letting me know! ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 18:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: TreasuryTag, I don't intend for my comment to come across as authoritative, in fact I kinda meant for that last bit to be included in the "please", and be a request. You all seem, to me, to be completely misreading this. DwayneFlanders isn't saying we're slaves, nor is s/he making demands, in fact the message made it explicitly clear it wasn't a demand. Are we saying that our users aren't allowed to expect things to be done in a certain amount of time just because we aren't paid? If you made a report to AIV, waited 24 hours, and it was still there, would it be rude for you to go to AN/I and request that an admin take a look at it? Of course not. Frankly I expect I'm more shocked by your comment "you clearly have no concept of civility". However, I apologise if I came across a blunt, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

But surely the reason you'd be reporting on AN/I, in my hypothetical situation, would be because you expect admins to address the AIV report in a certain amount of time, otherwise there wouldn't be a problem with them not having dealt with it, so you wouldn't be reporting it. So by posting to AN/I you would effectively be saying that you thought the admins needed to have a look at the request. It's not rude to expect volunteers to do what ever they are volunteering for, and if someone posted on AN/I saying "I expect admins to deal with AIV reports in 3 hours" I wouldn't be at all insulted, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well.. I already said above that I think those four users were misunderstanding the meaning of the post, or overreacting. If that's all you have to say I think we're done. I've toned down my comment on User talk:WJBscribe, I hope you find it more acceptable now. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:DTTR where it states in black and white.... Having said this, those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template. The editor using the template may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not themselves consider the template use rude. They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)