User talk:Toddst1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search




I hope you'll consider responding[edit]

Hi, Toddst, I hope you will consider responding to the thread on ANI criticizing a block of yours,[1] or to the criticism here on this page.[2] Please take your time, but it would be helpful to get your angle on the business. Both sides should be heard, and I don't think people are out to lynch you. Bishonen | talk 15:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

Hi Bish. Todd sent me an email and asked me to let you know that he's on a Wiki break and unable to respond (until around 2015).--v/r - TP 22:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
A non-response through an intermediary?!? Is that the new transparency and accountability standard re WP:ADMINACCT?!? (Wow.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Per User:Toddst1/monobook.js Todd will be physically unable to log into wikipedia, unless he gets some admin to delete/edit this script for him. Looks like that will last until 1/1/2015. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thank you, Gaijin and TParis. I just this minute posted a question about it on ANI, to Newyorkbrad.[3] Considering the content of the ANI thread, I might as well leave it there to be answered, for the information of others. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC).


Todd, should you wish to undo this action, and don't want to have someone else edit the page for you, I believe adding "&useskin=vector" will turn off monobook for you and let you edit the monobook script. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's much easier than that: just turn Javascript off in your browser. Writ Keeper  23:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Good gents, when someone feels that it's necessary to use a scripted enforced method to keep them off the site, don't you think giving them quick 'get-arounds' kind of defeats the purpose in the first place?--v/r - TP 23:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Its not like we are offering heroin to a recovering addict (at least I don't think so). Such actions can be taken rashly and be regretted. (How many people regret jumping out a window on the way down?) He still has two affirmative steps he must take to come back, so the reminder of his intent is still available. But I do take your point :) Gaijin42 (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
"How many people regret jumping out a window on the way down?" I've actually wondered that, myself. I mean, it's not like they can fill out a survey on the way down.--v/r - TP 23:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes they survive and report regret: "I instantly realized that everything in my life that I’d thought was unfixable was totally fixable—except for having just jumped." ---Sluzzelin talk 04:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Guardian of the Rings[edit]

Heads up. User talk:Guardian of the Rings is reverting several of your sock tags. I issued a Level3 warning. -- Alexf(talk) 14:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

ac case[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Toddst1 NE Ent 15:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Self-block[edit]

Toddst1, I don't know exactly why you have chosen to block yourself, but please do note that the blocking policy makes no exemption for unblocking oneself, even in the case of a self-imposed block. It would have been much more helpful if you had simply emailed the committee and informed us of what your intentions are/were. This needlessly complicates an already complicated situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah ... in a way it's also a use of your admin tools, contrary to motion. Bah. DP 00:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. I think that emailing the committee with an explanation of the actions discussed at the case request page would suffice. We already know that you wanted to take a wikibreak for whatever reason (and it must be respected) but this is getting needledsly complicated. I don't want to see you go or desysopped, but as Beeblebrox said above, this situation is becoming an urchin. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 07:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The motion hasn't been completed yet so this shouldn't count as an admin action against the motion. Personally think it should be unblocked by Arb as there really isn't a valid reason for the account to be blocked. Wiki break enforcer or not. Blethering Scot 09:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
He blocked himself; why unblock? The positive spin one can take is "here's proof I'm taking this seriously" DP 09:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I doubt there are many on the committee or elsewhere who would see any point to unblocking. If Toddst1 wants to be blocked, he can be blocked. Personally I am operating on the assumption that this is a dead issue and does not need any further attention from anyone unless and until Toddst1 should show some indication that he wishes to return. So what would be best would be if we just leave him alone until such a time. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding the Toddst1 request for arbitration[edit]

The following motion proposed regarding the Toddst1 request for arbitration has been passed:

The "Toddst1" request for arbitration is accepted, but a formal case will not be opened unless and until Toddst1 returns to active status as an administrator. If Toddst1 resigns his administrative tools or is desysopped for inactivity the case will be closed with no further action. Toddst1 is instructed not to use his admin tools in any way while the case is pending; doing so will be grounds for summary desysopping.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (TCGE) 15:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Closed Clarification request: Toddst1/Holdek[edit]

Clarification request: Toddst1/Holdek has been closed and archived. An archived copy of the of the request can be seen here. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Tinfoilboy[edit]

Want to consider his unblock request? I think it's sincere. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)