User talk:Waldo

From Meta

Hello. Here you can add messages here for me to read. As a disclaimer, I need specific wording to be able to fully know what you mean.

Hey[edit source]

Hi there.

You coming back to WorLocNews? Seeya Hrvcfr (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guiding you on appropriate use of the Report tool[edit source]

Hi Waldo,

Thank you for being the second person to use the newly added Report tool in your report of this revision; however, as far as I can tell, that doesn't require reporting. In my view, this tool should be for reporting specific revisions requiring (a) revision deletion (after which an administrator would privately determine whether suppression is required after handling) or (b) reversion (i.e., blatant vandalism). I'd like to allow all registered users to use the report tool, but if it is misused too often, we may need to restrict it to patrollers, perhaps.

Dmehus (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought anyone was allowed to report things that infringe upon user experience. Waldo (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Waldo: Thank you for taking the time to reply, and share you view; however, as you'll note when the extension was enabled, there was some skepticism as enabling it. Given that the "batting average" for the first two reports from users is 0 for 2, I do feel a change to which users can use the tool on Meta Wiki is in order. Note that this only affects Meta Wiki, and you can set whatever configuration for the Report extension on wikis on which you hold bureaucrat rights, as this proposal will have no bearing on that whatsoever. It's just that the tool really is mainly to be used for reporting blatant vandalism or revisions requiring revision deletion (i.e., when a user has inadvertently edited while logged out). And, as always, users will be free to message any patroller or administrator whether on their user talk page or with Special:EmailUser to report such things. Hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to mention that dealing in absolutes makes you come off as biased and one-sided, to me at least (though you did mostly clarify that you were aware that it's just your view in the first message, except the heading). Declaring to guide me on "appropriate use" makes little sense because you never added a sheet of rules to how to use the extension in the way you'd like it. This strikes me as odd since if you wanted it to be used a certain way then why didn't you make it known? I did not like that you used the phrase "It's just that the tool really is mainly to be used for reporting blatant vandalism or revisions requiring revision deletion" when you did not even specify, in a page or other method, that is what the extension should be used for, so you just come off as biased. Notice how you also did not specify that it was just your view? If had you created a clear article detailing rules for the extension then I wouldn't have a problem with that phrase. I also personally didn't need a clear explanation for how the process for a change worked since it's the Meta Administrators' Noticeboard which means it's not global, and assuming I didn't understand that changing the way it worked here on this wiki meant only changing it here hurts, and I just really need to tell you straight that I don't need you applying superiority on me. I just really needed to get that off my chest. Waldo (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit source]

When interacting with others, you must be civil. We are all volunteers here, and you making hurtful comments to others about their use of time is never appropriate. Zppix (Meta | Sysadmin | talk to me) 06:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zppix: I already was informed about that by Dmehus. Also to answer your concerns about targeting you I would never do that and you were just being sensitive. I only used you as an example because you were the first to come to mind. It's not that hard to consider. I have no malice and I don't appreciate you assuming that. Waldo (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Waldo: Please don't say that @Zppix: is just being sensitive. One's emotional state is a subjectively determined state of being, and it's not for you, I, or anyone for that matter to determine. Simply put, it's just not very nice. Regarding your point about you already being advised of this by me, yes that is correct, though, admittedly, I should've discussed this here rather than this reply in the discussion that was several indentations deep. So, while, yes, on the one hand, this was an unnecessary duplication by Zppix, I do think it would've been preferable for him to ask me to copy my guidance note to you here. With that, hopefully, this can be taken as a learning experience for all concerned, and we can move forward from this positively. Dmehus (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Then is assuming one's emotional state a violation of the Code of Conduct? This also reminds of the fact that I wasn't acting passive aggression towards you, I was just leaving a comment about your hours without malice. Waldo (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Waldo: Generally speaking, and notwithstanding some exceptions, no it would not be a Code of Conduct violation. However, that example you cite is not the same at all; that is my interpretation and assessment of your comments and attitude towards me, which I felt was a bit passive aggressive. Note, too, that I did not imply that you intended for it to be passive aggressive, but that's the way it came across to me. Hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Well you implied whether or not you meant to imply I was being passive aggression since you blatantly typed that my comment was passive aggression and you didn't specify that it was your view! Waldo (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Waldo: I'm not going to get into a word semantic debate with you. That's simply not accurate. I think we're done here. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: You're being biased on what is not accurate or accurate. Now we are done. Thank you. Waldo (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mediocre TV Show Episodes Wiki![edit source]

(@Waldo:) Sorry it took me a while to Write this I am here today asking you to remove my block on Mediocre TV Show Episodes Wiki! As it was Innerpropraite of Danny to block me and This Block is frowned upside down By Stewards as Inappropriate I am asking that you do the right thing and Unblock me I done nothing wrong --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cocopuff2018: I don't know anyone who goes by "Danny". The only other admin has the username "Danner". I don't see proof that a plural amount of Stewards find the block inappropriate so next time add links as proof or don't write that at all. I don't really feel compelled to unblock you since I don't find anything dishonest about your block, and considering that you have made a claim that was unsupported by links that makes me feel like I'm being lied to by you (though you might not be). I would like a new reply that has a good explanation and reason for needing to be unblocked. I do want to do the right thing, so help me understand. Waldo (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]