User:Charm/sandbox

Playing with signature
Charm &copy;&dagger;

Charm &copy;&dagger; 07:19, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Tested in Mozilla 1.7.3 and Internet Explorer 6.0

Charm&amp;nbsp;&#91;&#91;Special:Contributions/Charm&#124;&amp;copy;]]&#91;&#91;User talk:Charm&#124;&amp;dagger;]] 07:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * that didn't work -- why? this time I won't preview...

Charm&amp;nbsp;&#91;&#91;Special:Contributions/Charm&#124;&amp;copy;]]&#91;&#91;User talk:Charm&#124;&amp;dagger;]] 07:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's try this one more time.
 * I just discovered the "raw signature" preference -- where did that come from?

Charm &copy;&dagger; 07:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, added and , and it seems to be working again now. Charm &copy;&dagger; 07:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I just noticed today that in my signature, my username was going to an article called Charm, instead of my user page. This was apparently going on since 9 April 2006 (see above). I guess it's a good thing I haven't been all that active since then (on the other hand, maybe I would have noticed sooner). Fixed now, I believe. Charm &copy;&dagger; 04:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new version of User:Tawker/questions
[ Edits I'd like to make, but since it's a user subpage, I'll look for Tawker's consent first. ]

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)


 * 1) You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
 * A
 * 1) An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
 * A
 * 1) If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
 * A
 * 1) Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
 * A
 * 1) Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
 * A
 * 1) Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
 * A
 * 1) A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
 * A
 * 1) Why do you want to be an administrator?
 * A
 * 1) In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * A