Misplaced Pages

User talk:Steven Crossin

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jossi (talk | contribs) at 01:00, 13 June 2008 (→I thought we had an agreement....). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:00, 13 June 2008 by Jossi (talk | contribs) (→I thought we had an agreement....)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Steve's Talk Page

User:Steve Crossin/Icons User:Steve Crossin/StatusTemplate

                                  
User Page User Talk Contribs E-mail Subpages Adoption Awards

Welcome to my talk page . I like keeping the conversation together, so if you comment here, I'll reply here. If I comment on your page, reply there, I'm watching it. Be nice, and I will be.


Archive

Archive Index


Rawat proposals

I suggest that User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1#Proposal 5 and User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal4#Proposal 2 are ready to be added to the article, replacing existing material. Both have been discussed and no substantive objections have been lodged to the last versions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add editprotect requests. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 08:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to your handling of the Prem Rawat mediation. To announce an intention to choose and insert a proposal on the Prem Rawat talk page and to make that change less than 30 minutes later is outrageous. This is isn't a race. Important changes must be clearly notified to all involved and ample time given for a response to your proposed change.Momento (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
As for your edit summary of consensus, 11 editors signed on for your mediation on the Prem Rawat talk page. Only one WillBeBack commented on your proposal on that page.Momento (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt response to my concerns.Momento (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • May I request that the mediation proceed more actively? We have five proposals some of which appeared to have had consensus. Now it's not clear if any of them will get there. Could Steve pick one or two and help us out? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps start a straw poll on the proposals? After the last "incident", I don't think it would be wise for me to try and pick out any of the proposals above the others, i must remain impartial. That said, I'll oversee any such discussion or straw poll. Try to keep working through it, I suggest you send a message to all the participants about the proposals. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 07:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, let's try some straw polls. Let's start with Proposal #1. I'll post a strawpoll on its talk page, with notifications all around. Feel free to redo my work if it's not to your liking. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • PS: I had't meant for Steve to pick one individual proposal over another. My request was just for him to pick one or two topics for which there are proposals, and to engage in active mediation on those topics. The strawpolls may take care of the problem - I just wanted to clarify my original remarks. On a related note, perhaps the nomenclature of these proposals can be changed, at least in the future? Maybe something like "Topic 3#Proposal B" or even "Proposal 3#Proposal 3.2". "Proposal 3#Proposal 2" gets confusing very quickly when several proposals on different topics are being discussed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Steve, I asked for your help and you told me to use a strawpoll and that you'd oversee the discussion, but you never did. I asked again for your active engagement, and you didn't reply. So far this mediation has been going on weeks, and tens of thousands of words have been written, yet not a single substantial agreement has come of it. How do you think mediation is going? Do we need a second mediator or can you become more active? Should we thank you for your time and efforts, and move on to formal mediation? The methods we've used so far haven't brought any results. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll admit that I haven't been very active in the discussion, I've had things going on. I have been keeping an eye on the process, and haven't ignored it at all. I'm sorry that I didn't reply, however, on the page where there was a straw poll, I did reply. I noted that I wasn't using it as a vote, more a way for me to determine a rough consensus. I know this is a slow process, but it's a difficult one, and it's one that will take time. I feel the idea of "no results", so far, that's a little rough. No article changes does not mean no results. Discussions have taken place, and proposals have been written, which appears to be improving as time goes on. If you wish it, I can become more active on the discussion pages. Additionally, I don't feel a second mediator here, well, to be honest, there are very few mediators that would take on a case such as I have, given it's such a contentious topic. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I certainly appreciate your help, and know what an unpleasant task it is. But if all we're going to do is protect article indefinitely then we don't need mediation for that. What results have you seen that are a result of the mediation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, while I'll agree that the results haven't been much, I'd say the fact that there has been more constructive and focused discussion on the proposal talk pages is a big plus. It's working towards edits being made, where there is a consensus for them being made. Consensus isn't where everyone agrees, but where everyone can live with the outcome. Regarding the protection, I have my reasons, which I outlined on Jossi's talk page. And, I did get your email from a few days ago, I understand your concerns, and I'll do what I can to be more active as a mediator. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 06:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Great. At the outset you said that your preferred style is to ask questions. Could that work? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It could work, yes. Right now, the style I'm using is a more collaborative one, where the editors more discuss such changes in a more structured way. Additionally, I've been less active in the mediation (and Misplaced Pages in general), due to real life stuff, such as her and preparing for one of these in a few weeks. I personally like to try quite a few methods of discussion, and I'd even do a Skype chat with all of you, if the parties were willing. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 06:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The trouble is that the discussions aren't leading to any conclusions. I certainly appreciate that you have many more important and enjoyable tasks than mediating a dispute among locquacious editors. Let's if this next week brings any better results. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm confident that in time, progress will be made. What would you think of a skype chat? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 07:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Would Skype give us that we don't have in a talk page? If it were conducted the same way as current discussions then I don't think it's any more likely to achieve a result. A structured discussion aimed at achieving a specific result with an active facilitator could succeed regardless of the medium. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a quicker discussion, which could produce faster results? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 07:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Proposal 1 alone has grown to over 11,000 words. Previous discussion on the same text at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 36#DLM/PR coordination sprawled to 5,000 words. How many more thousands of words are needed to get us to a conclusion? I don't think we'll ever get there without active mediation. One lesson we've learned is that getting a consensus among only some of the editors is useless if, at the last moment, another editor suddenly pops in and wants to start over from scratch. So for a Skype chat to be effective it would have to involve all of the active editors, editors who are spread across the globe. Rather than more words faster, could fewer words discussed more slowly succeed? That is, you putting out a question and waiting for everyone to agree to a formulation before moving on to the next point, slowly building up material with complete, explicit consensus among all active parties. I dunno. Perhaps the some members of the MedCom could offer suggestions? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Discussion is getting long, I have no doubts about that. Discussion about content is probably something that should happen, however, I could definitely become more active in the discussions, raising questions, and after this bunch of proposals, or at least one or two, are done, I think we could switch onto the other foot, go back and address the other issues that are on the MedCab page. However, I feel the best way for consensus to be formed is discussion between editors, with me asking questions when necessary. I'll ask a MedCom member, but I think shifting how I oversee the mediation slightly would be better than overhauling it completely. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 08:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This mediation began a month ago. We wrote 11,000 words on the mediation page before that was discarded. The five active proposals (including Prop.1) have a total of almost 28,000 words of discussion. Since the mediation started, talk:Prem Rawat has seen another 60,000 words written. That's 100,000 words of discussion in the past month without a single significant agreement about changes to the articles. If you think that a small change in methodology will cause a major change in results then go for it. Whatever works. But if things aren't working then a change, large or small, is necessary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course, I've seen a lot of discussion. The discussion on the mediation page (I assume you mean the discussion that was archived?), wasn't discarded, was just moved to the talk page. The current discussions on the mediation page haven't been discarded, just put on hold. I will have a chat with someone from MC. Steve Crossin (talk)(email)
  • OK, "dormant" is better than "discarded". My mistake. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, dormant rather than extinct. :) Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 12:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • IRC - yes, I can get on IRC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess I misunderstood your question. I have IRC, and would be willing to make special arrangements to use it for the purposes of a directed discussion on a private channel. I never participate in public IRCs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What's the topic? What's the purpose of the discussion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't like IRC, and I'm not sure that having private conversations is a good precedent. However I'll stop in and see if I can help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

D13G054NCH3Z

It's just leet for Diego Sanchez. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but when I spoke to them about it, this is the response I got. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hello, Steve. I was wondering if this was a good edit. --RyRy5 (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion assignment

I've read it a few times and I have started the assignment. I don't think I should continuo since your offline but I tagged this as db-bio. The content was "Marisol was meant for Kyle when she first laid eyes. They should be together forever but it has to start before the end of year ends. The worst part is that they are going to separate schools. This will hopefully make more of a reason to go out now.". If it's deleted, then just click on Marisol_and_Kyle for the reason for deletion. I hope when it's deleted that you trust that I actually tagged it. Please tell me when I can finish the rest of the assignment. Thanks, RyRy5 (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I'd say that could be {{db-bio}}. Okay, continue the assignment like below, okay? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 07:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright Steve. -- RyRy5 (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I tagged a few earlier. I'll list them below in a second. Oh, and happy 4 month anniversary at Misplaced Pages. :) -- RyRy5 (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagged articles


User:Malinaccier/Temporary taggings

Pilfering

Hi steve, Is it ok with you for me to pilfer some of your adoption course ?

Some help or advice, if you don't mind

I'm asking this of you before I take it to any noticeboards or admins. They've got a tough enough time as it is without dealing with fanstuff for a silly sci fi series. All the same, there are some very contentious editors over at the Doctor Who family of articles. I tried to insert some information based on evidence that is directly supported by the episode, and even got one of the dissenting editors to agree with my argument for inclusion last night, but we're back to square one for some reason today. I'll admit, I probably need to cool off a bit, but I trust your insights on matters such as this: what do you think I should do?

The article in question is The Sound of Drums. The debate got pretty active yesterday. Thanks in advance for any help or advice.

Mael-Num (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, it's already been taken to WP:AN. Someone just started a thread here.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked the AN thread to be closed, and I'll have a look at the talk page now. Fill me in on the details? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 19:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the other side :-) Essentially, they say that since a character who is the President-elect of the USA is in the story, which also involves paradoxes, twisted timelines and alien invasions, the story must take place between November and January 2008, as that is the way the US political system works. When pointed out that it is likely, or at least plausible (we really have no idea, hence the original research) that the US political system could be changed or different in the sci-fi story, we were informed that that was "pure speculation" on our part.
In a nutshell/case :-) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Steve, I added a new section here: Mael-Num (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I spotted it. I think you may be interpreting that specific part of the MoS incorrectly, however. Steve Crossin (talk)(email)

In regard to the above

Do you just want me to list beneath the articles whether they were good taggings (since we seem to be having some problems on IRC)? Malinaccier (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do so. Or if you could, email the contents to me, and let me judge for myself? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll email em to you. Malinaccier (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
(last one is good too) Malinaccier (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Something's seriously wrong here

In regard to the above, the case over at the noticeboard...well that was the last straw for me. Right or wrong, I'll turn a blind eye to bad behavior because I don't want to burden the boards with something I think we could have worked out on our own. The blinders come off when the cuplrit runs to the noticeboards himself, and paints a picture like that. Hopefully we can still work out the content portion of this issue without more administrative oversight.Mael-Num (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't merely about content any longer. I put up another bit at the AN. Unfortunately, a pre-involved editor rubber-stamped it "Resolved" after dismissing my (well-researched, if I do say) many claims as "taking it personal". What the hell is that? Mael-Num (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this, but surely strking out my comment, which Mael did, is against some policy? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 21:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How does one accidentally type <del> and </del> in just the right place so as to strike out the comment of one you're accusing of naughtiness?! And as for your comment on the talkpage - we've said that. He insists that we need to provide a contrary source as to doubt his argument is speculation. You'll need to do more than what you've done, I'm afraid. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 21:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I missed those tags. Thanks for pointing it out. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(rolls eyes in exasperation with certain un-named non-admins) Pleasure... Sorry to keep saddling you with this... ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 21:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep pulling your eyes over the wool, Steve. Mael-Num (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Prem Rawat Mediation

G'day Steve,

I just noticed that it is really difficult for anyone wishing to become a new participant to the Prem Rawat mediation to find their way to the right place from the main article. Try to get there manually from the main Prem Rawat article and you'll see what I mean. If someone clicks on 'discussion' and then your soft redirect, they end up at the almost empty talk page of the sandbox article, with no link to the page listing the proposal pages where most of the work is actually happening.

If someone was to go via the Media Cabal link on the protection template of the main article they would also find it difficult to find their way to where the current discussion is happening.

Can you have a go at making it easier for people to find their way to the right place from the main article or discussion page?

p.s. I've just posted a little bit of info about myself on my talk page in response to your posting there. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation process

I understand that you requested to be allowed to make a final assessment if there is consensus for an edit. See this that may be the case, but was performed out of process by Will Beback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I do not think that protection is warranted at Divine Light Mission. There was no edit-warring activity that would warrant it and was a premature and an unnecessary move. I appreciate your assistance in the mediation but think you may have overreached a bit here. Hope you would take this comment in good spirits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

checkY Unprotected. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 17:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks steve, ive been needing to get round to that :)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™ |l»  08:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Balls of Steel Barnstar
You know why... ;-) giggy (:O) 10:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My tagging

Hi Steve. I was wondering what you thought of my tagging so far. I was wondering when I should stop also? Thanks, RyRy5 (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What is there to see? All I see is Shapiros and you staying, not leaving, getting along, and everything restoring back to place. ;) What else is there to see? Just kidding. :P I saw that already. But it's nice everything worked out. -- RyRy5 (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for a certain policy. I was looking for the policy that says that you can't !vote on other user's same interests as you or something like that. I was also looking for the policy that has something to do with not allowing two users to share 1 account. Do you think you can show me those? Thanks. -- RyRy5 (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was about to close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bikini Bottom as merge. I was wondering how you merge two article appropriately. I already know pretty much but I would just like your idea of how to merge an article. --RyRy5 (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But I am still wondering about your idea of merging. It could be useful in the future. --RyRy5 (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A question

Hello Steve Crossin. I was wondering whether you were still involved in trying to resolve the edit war at The Sound of Drums? After your initial offer to help, the last edit that you made was this rather cryptic one . Since then several editors not involved in the initial conflict have commented and all have come down on the side that the info should not be included. I only ask because the page protection comes off in a few days and I feel sure that the two editors who insist on its inclusion will start reinserting the info. If you are no longer involved will you please drop a note on the articles talk page stating this for the record. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied here. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Adoption?

Steve, Please tell me if I understand that you would be willing to adopt me? I don't know how to search for users but found a link on a post asking if there was anyone adopting. If not please let me know. --Crimson Red Fox (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for the help, I have plenty of questions:
Where should I leave questions for you? Is here okay?
What are"verifiable" sources? According to Misplaced Pages no webpages can be used, which I can understand since spam could be a huge problem. So, what is a verifiable source? However, there ARE sources on the web used at the bottom of many pages. So, when is it okay to use webpages?
Can I use smilie faces or emotions on my user page? If so, where do I find them?
I hope you don't mind but I looked at your profile & you live in Australia, very cool. I am in the US. --Crimson Red Fox (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay, well, it's not exactly true that no websites on the internet can be used. Sites such as the New York Times, and many other news sites, are some of the best sites to use for reliable sources. Generally, on Misplaced Pages, we more look to see if a source is unreliable. Sites such as blogs and sites you own yourself. Generally, self published sources should be avoided. You're fine to ask me questions here, that's the best place for me to see it :). You can use smiley faces on your page, and there are some here. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 16:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

IRC

I just got a message to join your IRC. Where is it? --RyRy5 (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

/knock ##Steve - it's protected. BG7even 21:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a link? --RyRy5 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, no link, just join Misplaced Pages-en and I'll get you there.

Proposal 2

Pls see: User_talk:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal2#Time_to_make_this_edit. Thanls ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism 1.2 assignment

Finished. Just check my contributions. -- RyRy5 (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Does age matter for the editing class? pollylop22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollylop22 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 18:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He/She probably means if you have to be a certain age to edit wikipedia. There isn't. Although you have to be 18 or older to be a check user. --RyRy5 (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User Talk Page Icons

Steve, More questions: How do I find icons for user pages? Then how do I add them to my user page? --Crimson Red Fox (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Hi Steve: I saw your message on my talk page and that I was to look here for a message from you to me, but it seems that all the stuff on here is unrelated. Can you be more specific? --Achim (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism

See here. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  10:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had an agreement....

See Talk:Prem_Rawat#Recent_edits ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no response from that user, has not self reverted and has not created a proposal page. This is disturbing as he is abdicating on his previous commitment to abide by the agreement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Should I bring this to WP:AE? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I am sure you would have made the same argument if Momento would have deleted text from the article, added new material, and created new sections without consensus. (sorry for the sarcasm, but could not help it). I will take this to WP:AE, unless Francis agrees to abide by the agreements we have all made in dispute resolution, to which informal mediation belongs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no problems. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA?

I will offer to nominate you at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship to be an administrator if you are interested. Before I do that, I have a few questions:

  1. Are you interested?
  2. Do you use automated tools such as VandalProof or Huggle? How often and in what context? I notice you have more user talk edits than mainspace edits (about 7,000 each), so I assume the large majority of your 18,000 edits are either vandalism reverts or user talk warnings. Are you taking the time you need to ensure that you are not making careless mistakes?
  3. On a related note, how did you rack up more than 600 reports to WP:AIV? How did you rack up about 10,000 edits in March alone? (What does Mellie think of your wiki-addiction?) :)
  4. You have mediated some conflicts. Does this help or hurt your chances of passing RFA?
  5. I noticed you at WP:SSP where I am active. How would you help over there if you had admin tools?

I hope that's not too many questions. If the answer to the first is "no," you may skip the others. If "yes," I think you could be a good admin, but I would need a sense of how you would use admin tools, so that's why I have to ask about you using automated non-admin tools. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please leave a note on my talk page saying you replied here. I don't use my watchlist. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Huggle FTW. Enigma 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi there, I remember you well. I really do thank you for your offer, and out of respect, I will answer all of your questions.
  1. Am I interested? Yes, I definitely am. My RFA is very soon, I've been offered nominations by people I hold in the highest respect. It could really be any day now, this post is evidence that I'm being pressed to go for an RFA :-)
  2. I formerly used Huggle, and I used it a lot, yes. I haven't used it in well over a month, I now feel that there are many other Wikipedians who are more than capable in doing this task. Many of my edits are automated, I've also done a lot of editing within the 24 Wikiproject, and it's related articles. A lot of my talk page edits are warnings, however they are somewhat balanced with regular discussion. I also do admit, that when I first did vandalism reversions, my judgment wasn't the best, and I did get quite a few complaints on my talk pages, and I'll be the first one to put up my hand, when someone asks if people have made mistakes when doing RC patrol. Through time, I feel that my judgment has improved quite a lot, and I'm very confident that I can differentiate between what is and what is not vandalism, something I am trying to teach my adoptee, RyRy5, and I also feel I'd have the judgment when, and when not to, issue a vandalism block.
  3. Not all my edits to AIV were vandalism reports. Many of them were me examining reports, and commenting on them, giving my 2 cents where it's evident, or possible, that a block is unwarranted. I also helped create {{AIV}}, a template that is used quite a bit on AIV now. That said, quite a lot of my edits to AIV, are also, actual reports. The 10,000 edits, in march, Huggle, mostly Huggle. I realise now that editcountitis is bad, and I've pretty much stopped using Huggle, I feel my wiki time is better used elsewhere, such as mediation. As for Mellie, she likes Misplaced Pages too, but you will note my editing hasn't been as much recently. :)
  4. Indeed, I have mediated a few difficult conflicts, I'm currently mediating the Prem Rawat MedCab case, a lot of discussion is happening in my userspace. I personally think it will help my chances in an RFA (touch wood). I feel that a administrator who is also a mediator, can demonstrate their judgment, and their ability, for how to handle very complex disputes, which is something I think administrators need.
  5. Finally, on SSP, I'd be more active there, definitely. As an administrator, I'd be able to do what I do now, compare the suspected sockmaster with the suspected sock puppets, view deleted contributions, and issue blocks when necessary. SSP is an area that is in constant need of attention, and I would try to help ease the backlog there.

I hope that answers all your questions, Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these are all good answers. If you want I can write you a nomination or conomination. If others have already offered to do it, let them. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I think I will wait until I get the final nudge from my main nom who has offered. Then, hello to the week of hell ;-). I must say I'm grateful for your nomination offer, I've not actually got one on my talk page recently, most were on IRC. My rfa should be soonish though. Thanks again. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Steven Crossin Add topic