User talk:Vodello/Archive3

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Your ACE Questions[edit]

Would you please consider removing the second question you asked of me on my ACE Questions page? While Sceptre's behavior is very unhelpful, I fear the mere asking of your question (even though I have no intention of ever answering myself) will only serve to make things even worse; I can't see its continued presence being helpful to anyone for any reason. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done His fragile feelings will not be hurt by me. Good luck in this election. Hopefully he will not call to have you banned in order to prevent you from making it to the vote. Vodello (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note on your post[edit]

You're right on the stats, but that's about all.

As well as the matters you cite, I'm also one of the project's most experienced users at spotting and evidencing cases of dodgy adminship. I've taken several such cases to Arbcom (public and private), including sensitive cases (Poetlister which involved 5 projects, WMF and a number of government officers) and cases needing exceptional evidence -- and not one of them has been found lacking when put to the test.

These are senior trusted users who secretly breached trust, abused others and their standing to harm the project, made false accusations (including false bans) against users, pushed POV, ruthlessly lied, and deceived the users who trusted them. I assume that matters to you?

You can assume I do not make statements lightly, I know the high standard of evidence needed, and the evidence for the statements made are just as compelling. You may notice Alison, as an independent uninvolved reviewer trusted to view non-public data such as Checkuser, is harder on it than I. Shall I ask another Checkuser or Oversighter to opine, or are you getting the idea?

Make of it what you will. As a rule, arguments based on evidence trump arguments based on personalities. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make baseless accusations of sockpuppetry to scare me away from Wikipedia. It's paranoia and constant cyber bullying like this that immensely devalued the integrity of the Arbitration Committee. Vodello (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check moment, Vodello. If you read carefully you'll see nobody's accused you or anything. Checkusers deal with socking, but also, they're some of the highest trusted users for reviewing any non-public matters outside Arbcom (that's how they got that role).

Although there may be the odd lapse, Checkusers and Oversighters will usually be some of the fairest - though firmest - users you'll meet. That is why in a serious matter their uninvolved opinion is often worthwhile. You can also assume they do not lightly state if there is a concern.

I don't know what you're used to from other admins, or why you're quick to assume you're being bullied or "scared away from Wikipedia". You can relax; this thread is just informational. You assumed (negatively) without appearing to be aware of much, then in your reply did the same. A responsible user will usually explain the background you're missing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unwelcome editors[edit]

Re your edit of 19:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC): I for one would kick out all Pastafarians and Presleyterians, as everyone knows rock and roll and spaghetti are tools of the devil. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]