User talk:Leaky caldron/Archives/2013/February

Harsh
Leaky m8, I think you were being a little harsh on Carrite. I've opposed also for the same reason, but I can't see the intent of tool misuse including looking at deleted material. You may disagree, or you may be just trying to demonstrate that an RFA for the purpose of achieving a personal goal is wrong, but I just feel you were a little harsh on Carrite. I might've been a bit snappy too had I seen you rephrase the question again like that. Your oppose is valid, but I think you should ease up a bit.--v/r - TP 23:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The first attempt to answer Q8 was pure obfuscation really, seeking to selectively place emphasis on my use of the word tools in my question. Tools are advanced rights and reading deleted material is an advanced right therefore it follows that tools and Advanced Rights are interchangeable. So I clarified "advanced rights" and received a load of shit in return, namely "specious" and "Alice in Wonderland." Please see O23 and N11 who agree that his response was out of order. Someone really needs to determine (per the Coren opinion) that dredging up material for an Arbcom case using advanced rights by any Admin. is a case of WP:TOOLMISUSE, otherwise a couple of Admins., including the candidate if successful, might end up at WP:AN. Leaky  Caldron  11:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for RfA conduct clarification
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. -- Trevj (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)