User talk:GoneAwayNowAndRetired/Archive 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Thanks, we are going to need a separate US article as this thing is spreading fast. I live in Canada, it is only a matter of time, that it reaches here! Green Squares (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

T

) 21:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

scary outbreak. Thanks for providing this link.

talk

) 15:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing is a big mess. You see how many countries now in the main article?

T

) 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

After famil members died in the WWI outbreak, I had a dead family member pulled out of the family farm house window into a cart for the dead. What is interesting is there is no Mexico page, just a US one. Just shows how country biased english wikipedia is.

talk

) 16:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's terrible. I wouldn't say it's a bias thing overtly so much as people write what they know. A lot of us are American. The American media is going nuts--this hasn't happened to us in 40 years. I'm sure if there was more readily available coverage in Mexican media and people with time/skill to work it over that it could be just as built out.

T

) 16:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rootology. You've made a series of comments at the block review (for the block imposed on Ikip), and you later reversed Ikip's block. I would request that you answer my questions as promptly as possible.

1. Have you made any attempts to communicate with the blocking admin prior to your unblock? If so, how many minutes elapsed between your attempts to communicate with the blocking admin, and your unblock?
2. You have stated to AMIB: "You as an admin have zero standing or authority to levy this block as one of the deepest "deletionist" partisans on this site, just as anyone deeply involved in the squadron would have zero standing or authority to undo it." Can you please provide diffs to support this claim?
3. In saying to AMIB: "You must undo this block and not do such a thing again, or you will not be long for your tools once the Arbitration Committee sees what you're about", can you clarify what you meant?
4. You've stated to AMIB: "You pretty much missed the goal as far right as you can on this one, for being involved." Can you provide diffs for this claim?

Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Blocks and admin actions are never sacrosanct, unless they are from the Arbitration Committee as a body or cited as an OFFICE action. Any can be reversed once by any admin in good faith with justification. I provided my justifications here. For your specific questions:

1. We were talking in the ANI thread. That is classically regarded as sufficient, but I posted the diffs that he was going to pull for him. There's no canvassing for days before the block. Since blocks are preventative by policy and not punative, the block automatically has no standing. I re-opened the archived discussion, that Abd closed, so that my unblock can be reviewed and re-instated by any uninvolved admin if required.
2. This would take a long while to gather it all, but a long-standing user's leanings are hardly secret. I'm a BLP zealot most times; Ikip is an inclusionist; DGG is an inclusionist; JoshuaZ is an inclusionist; AMiB is a deletionist; Phil Sandifer is an inclusionist.
3. Admins have repeatedly been told by the AC (and policy) that they may not use tools in areas in which they are involved. My strongly-worded suggestion was so that another good admin doesn't fall down that hole.
4. See #3. Again, any demonstratably uninvolved admin can freely reverse my unblock, I waive all wheel warriness, etc.

AMIB has replied to my unblock, by the way, on that thread.

Okay; just to note that it was very appropriate of you to revert the closing and leave the thread open, for the reasons you've stated.

There are a couple of things I'd like to clarify for future incidents. If AMIB had participated in that particular deletion discussion, then using his tools would likely be inappropriate. Alternatively (as may be the case here), if AMIB had been involved in personal and direct conflict with Ikip, especially if it was recent, then his use of tools would not be appropriate. Such involvement can cloud judgement. However, mere general participation in other deletion debates/discussions is not necessarily enough for an admin to be considered "involved". Similarly, merely having a particular stated leaning that is in conflict with the other user's is usually not enough to suggest any user is involved, and should not be used as a reason to prevent an admin from enforcing what they should be. The same has generally applied for all other discussions, RFAs, AC decisions, etc. Although there are likely exceptions to everything I've just said, does that make sense?

Btw, would you mind if I sent you email? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Email's always welcome. :)

T

) 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to leave a note: sent one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Heya Rootology. I think you kinda lost the "uninvolved status" when you made those accusations. Just my $0.02. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I have, going forward, but I'm definitely an I/Dist "centrist", if my AFD record speaks for itself on the ones I've begun. Although for BLPs I'm definitely a deletionist, so I suppose one "partly" deletionist undoing another's block isn't the end of the world. I'm more concerned about the INVOLVED concerns, which have always been one of my biggest policy concerns. I think a lot of us play far too fast and loose with that, all the way up to the Checkuser/Oversight level.

T

) 15:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. When you made the accusations on the board that he was blocking because of I/D agendas, you became involved.

FWIW, I would have unblocked if Ikip had employed the {{unblock}} template. Which is to say, there is at least one admin even more uninvolved (or at least closer to neutral on the topic) than you :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Know you're busy in real life and all, but thought you might like to see some available changes here. We now have some more options for formatting the

It appears an abuse filter was put in place anyway without visible discussion. It is currently set private so I can't even get a look at the regular expression(s) in use. Details on

Bring up your concerns there, please. I'll take a look.

T

) 01:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I did, I also had a very very long discussion with Promethean on IRC when he first brought it up there. I thought that was the end of that discussion but others have gone ahead with it anyway, I guess. Tothwolf (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at my post. Also, barring "emergency" situations, and rarely that, no wide-reaching thing like this should be hashed out on IRC ever. It lacks transparency.

T

) 01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Promethean was looking for support for his proposal on IRC but he didn't really find it (at least I thought). I do believe he understood my concerns by the end of the discussion I had with him. I would never support a filter such as this where the regular expression and such are being "hidden" from public view and where no public process has taken place beforehand. Tothwolf (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

An interesting read that explains allot about your interest GoneAwayNowAndRetired, This just screams Canvass personally as it shows you had a predisposition without even looking or knowing about the filter. Also Tothwolf, thier was support on IRC as you were the only one with minor concerns, whereas [Roux] and [Soap] supported the idea in its entirty.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no, I'd been active in the WP:AN discussion about torrent links, and was opposed there to the blacklisting of piratebay.org on the site blacklist functionality without a wide prior concensus, and Guy and I had gotten Godwin involved. There was no consensus on AN (or anywhere else) so the possibility of it being restricted in any way via the Abuse Filter, let alone YouTube, was an unfortunate way around consensus. It was good of tothwolf to say something. You have to rattle the cages sometimes and drag people's eyes onto possible issues.

T

) 13:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Promethean, if you had read the original AN discussion (which I provided you a link to when you were first proposing your filter idea on IRC) and that I've linked to on the abusefilter #155 request discussion you'd realize your claim of canvassing is way out of bounds. There was not consensus based support for your filter proposal on IRC and as I recall you managed to get into quite an argument with [roux] leading to you being banned for 12-24 hours. Tothwolf (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of politicizing article review. Maybe I would support it with some lower-profile editors in an isolated area, but applying such a sanction to the parties in this case seems like it would open the doors to claims of wikistalking and bad faith across the project. A GA review wouldn't just be a GA review—it would also represent 5% of an editor's unfettered privileges; I don't think it's good to tie them together. Cool Hand Luke 06:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Pong. Cool Hand Luke 16:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts? Seems as if we're playing musical namespaces at this point... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

T

) 17:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should move it back to templatespace, <noinclude> the TFD tag, and re-open the TFD allow re-nomination at TFD if required. –xeno ^talk 17:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should close the whole thing down since arguing over this stuff is silly. It needs to be off the main page for a few days to a few weeks, and it doesn't matter in the end.

T

) 17:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why you didn't just speedily keep the TFD? Do you mind if I move it back into templatespace? –xeno ^talk 17:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No secret that I despire IAR 99% of the time, but I still won't close an xfd I'm involved in that closely. I really think it's fine where it is, all this nonsense over a pointless mechanical solution we came up with makes me want to delete my entire userspace and scramble my password. This guy's AFD is a waste of everyone's collective time.

T

) 17:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I think the TFD was really the bigger time waster. Yes, it's a single-use template, but there was a justifiable reason for it. –xeno ^talk 17:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-templatefied, FYI. –xeno ^talk 18:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you add it to the map? Thanks. --67.189.254.208 (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rootology, thanks for keeping the swine flu map up to date, I just noticed South Dakota is still on it despite the fact the cases there were negative. I would correct this myself, but I suck at images so i was wondering if you could look at it. thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 00:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in helping to keep the swine flu maps updated, but I've never edited an image file on Wikipedia and I'm not familiar with svg files. I noticed that you've been doing a lot of work to keep the US map updated, so clearly you know what you're doing. If it's not an overly complicated process, could you drop me a line to let me know how it's done? --DavidK93 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty easy--Google and download a free app called "Inkscape", which you can use to edit .svg graphics. It's just a matter of paint-filling in the fields, then. At least that's how I did it...

T

) 16:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by

As you are an editor who had been involved in the

Hi. You semiprotected this template in April. An IP user used {{

Hi Root, I'd welcome your views on this suggestion, if you have time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started a proposal: Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I just realised a typo in this edit summary of mine [6] could be mistaken for "naive" it was meant to be "nice." Nothing Freudian, just a genuine typo. I am a great beleiver in people being given the opportunity to pull themselves together and sort their own problems out, without fear of blocking etc. It's sad that, in this case, there is so little hope, I think if KB could be removed from the equation BHG and VK could probably sort something out, but KB's hatred of VK in that field is too intense.

See my comment on the Impeachment of Functionaries talk page.

I largely agree that in virtually every instance that a public complaint about a functionary brought by the Community to ArbCom should be voted on in public. These would happen if a complaint is part of a RFArb.

But I want to make sure that the ArbCom Audut Subcommittee still can do its work. Since the Audit Subcommittee is new, the process is still evolving. I'm certain that we will get a stable policy over time. For now the way we are working is that a request for an investigation might be made in public or private. All reports of the investigation will be recorded in public. But it is possible that a private vote might happen under some circumstances and I don't want to box in the Committee by saying every public request must be in voted on if that outcome stops the right thing from happening. Effective quality outcomes is the goal and it is not yet clear how best that will be achieved in every instance. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That totally makes sense. I'm all for transparency (big shock, there) but I'm totally on board with a lot of information having to be private, if it's 'outing' in nature. But for the actual Arbcom votes? I'm trying to figure out any circumstance where the final roll coll of who voted what on a fixed proposal would need to be private from the community. I thought that this only came up previously on the Lar vs. Slim dispute, and on the JoshuaZ desysopping for private votes, but then it was later disclosed who voted which way.

Arbcom unbans are also private votes, but for any public outcome--an unban, a ban, a loss or restoration of status--I don't quite get why it would be bad for the votes of the individual arbs by name to be known? I.e., if there was a line vote for me, last year, on the mail list or wiki. Why would it be bad if everyone knew which Arb supported me, and didn't?

T

) 20:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Lar-SV case was a public vote. Evidence and discussion occurred in private. JoshuaZ happened in private by his request. If he decided to seek the return of the tools then the private information would have been disclosed.

I strongly prefer a public vote if the situation goes to a situation where an involuntary removal happens. But if the user agrees to the private case and private vote, then I think it might be for the best to do it that way if the outcome is reached with less stress and disruption. As long as the Audit Subcommittee is charged with monitoring it all, I think we can be reassured that a fair preceding in the best interest of the Community occurred.

Additionally, if we are going to investigate misuse and poor conduct, irrespective of the status of complainant, then some people think ArbCom might not want to publicly disclose who voted to allow the user to retain the tools if there is a significant chance that it will result in real world harassment for the Audit Subcommitte and ArbCom members. If the complainant is a banned user with history of harassment, then we still want to investigate if there is problematic conduct. We have grappled with this in the past in respect to starting and closing ban discussion for some highly toxic people. Personally, I don't think it is really effective to do it in private since the harasser will transfer their displeasure at the outcome to everyone. But knowing that this internal discussion has occurred, I don't want to force a public vote if the majority of people think it is a really bad idea in a particular instance. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by

Hi, going to ask you to refrain from further posting there as well, at least as regards OR. Please let me know if you have an issue with this - it seems best to just have you both step away from the conflict there, and stick to the ANI thread. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally fine by me.

T

) 16:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am now here to ask if you will also let it drop on ANI. It is in repeato-mode now, your rebuttals are only continuing the drama - let it go, yes? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Done.

T

) 17:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks, I know it irks to let some posts go un-rebutted, and I appreciate your forbearance. Now, if we can just get OR to drop it, too.... KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Some things are more important than getting what we or "our claimed people" (:P) want. By the way, he's spreading out, FYI.

T

) 18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It was an honest mistake that I forgot the "subst" prefix and an honest mistake. Calls for an indef block are a bit severe. Sorry. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The comment was a joke-- did you see my edit summary? :P

T

) 23:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Sorry, I just read what was on my page (and someone else had a more recent change to my page). Thanks for the clarification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. --

Delivered by

You might need to copedit your RFAR on AMiB; the second line currently reads "This admin by our current standards...are exactly the same." I think maybe you meant to say the standards for admins are the same and that AMiB no longer equals them?

I also wonder if it's a good idea to have the RFAR and MFD running concurrently; it might be good to have one of your colleagues close the latter (as it's unlikely to end in straightforward deletion). Regards,  Skomorokh  05:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. And more evidence that I can apparently write, but can't copy edit if you put a gun to my head.

T

) 05:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As for that MFD, I'm sure it will close down with the RFC suggestion soon. I'm honestly torn on the whole thing, especially after a long chat today about the topic.

T

) 05:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, the statement is clearer – and punchier! – now. I share your ambivalence on the ARS MfD; seeing the disruption around the project unfold the past month or so has been like watching a slow-moving car crash. Quite demoralizing. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  05:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember when I voted "Neutral but wanted to Support" on your rfa (I do not support candidates that pledge to the be open to recall.) You said you wanted to use the tools for "the housekeeping, primarily. I want the tools primarily so that I can have another way to help out. Moving images to Commons is a big thing I want to work on, that I have worked on on-and-off in bursts. Speedy deletion clean-up is another, and Requests for Page Protection is yet another area I'd like to help on. Those would be my primary areas, especially the images work involved in clearing out images moved over to Commons (principally the categories User-created public domain images and Copyright holder released public domain images). IFD is another area I could help out on, and I've been on and off trying to trudge through an image clean up project at User:Rootology/Images which is basically rooting out Commons move candidates from the orphaned PD images that belong more on Facebook than here or Commons. I do Huggle sometimes, if I have some spare time and don't feel like actually writing, so I'd probably try to help keep an eye on AIV backlogs when I can, as well. The image work, to go in tandem with my work and tools on Commons, will be my primary focus."

Now, 5 months in, do you feel you are following the statments you made? Hipocrite (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hip.

Well, my full log of actions as an admin is here. I've ended up doing the bulk of my admin work at

WP:RFPP like I predicted, and I've only gotten any actual static on an admin action for one AFD, the Susan Boyle one as seen here

. That close ended up being overwhelmingly endorsed (almost unanimously, if I recall) at DRV. I haven't done much RC patrol lately, not since I think a few weeks after my RFA, but I hadn't done much of that for several weeks before the RFA either. I've had free time in much smaller bursts lately, the odd day notwithstanding, which is why I've been just poking around more in admin areas and doing even less dedicated writing.

I didn't do a thorough review. I merely realized I had seen your name in two back-to-back dramaz and wondered if a gentle reminder of what you said you liked doing might be helpful. Carry on. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I'm not a fan of the dramaz anymore--you know I've had my fill of them over the years. Hopefully I can go x months after this current fire dies off. By the way, you're whip sharp--you ever see

T

) 19:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but my solution to all content disputes is far too simple to require a comittee. Topic ban everyone remotely involved in the dispute. Then, the wrong parties will be topic banned, and the right parties won't need to do whatever it is they were doing to counteract the guilty parties. The fireworks of the massive topic ban would bring enough other editors to solve any problem, especially now that everyone was topic banned an unable to bother them. I trust editors who don't care to do it right. I just wish someone would try implementing my suggestion on something and see how well it would work. Hipocrite (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, i'm dropping it now anyway and going to bed to recharge. Hopefully i'll wake up tomorrow in a slightly better wiki-mood ;) Cheers! John Sloan

Shut the fuck up you little shit.Drew Smith What I've done 02:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed.

T

) 02:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Woah, my apologies! Wrong user! Should have sent to the user below you, just caught that. That was a really bad mistake.Drew Smith What I've done 02:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what is going on. I thought you genuinely joking given the clusterfuck that is that thread? What is going on?

T

) 03:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, The person who posted below you said being called a little shit is no big deal. I accidentaly clicked on your talk instead of hers, and proceeded to prove my point. To the wrong person.Drew Smith What I've done 03:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries.

equality

03:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant to say here, but I don't see a problem with

It was meant to be "we don't need that = do we?" but I hit enter too fast. :( Do we need the extra symbology there?

rootology/equality

04:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not - it's certainly more of a shortcut than the others. --NE2 05:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm dumb, I get it now. Good one, I'll add it.

rootology/equality

05:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that you call me "Myth" instead of "Mythdon", and you call Ryulong "Ryu" instead of "Ryulong". Why is that? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No reason, I was just being friendly. I don't like tossing around any admin bravado, and it was just a friendly suggestion. It wasn't a "STAY AWAY PER THE ADMIN" sorta thing. I'll refer to you as Mythdon, if you prefer.

rootology/equality

05:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to be addressed exactly by my username, yes. I don't want other editors getting confused. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Rootology. I think that I might end up hosting tonight's

I'll shoot you an email.

rootology/equality

22:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I admire you for deciding to try to make Wikipedia better for its editors. ParlorGames 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I like this as well. Thanks Root. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

• Prize for "first workshop proposals." ;-)
  AGK
  17:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm nothing if not fast, and you caught me seconds after I wrapped up my evidence. :)
  rootology/equality
  17:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'm actually done barring one piece that I mailed the AC to ask for permission to disclose in some form.
  rootology/equality
  18:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: broken edit?

No, that was not a broken edit. It was a good one. I was converting the reference to use a

talk

) 02:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Barnstar

		The Dual-Boot Barnstar
		In recognition of the fact that you actually deserve more than one Barnstar for your recent work, Ched in his typically lazy manner drops off your "Dual-Boot" Barnstar for: Your efforts and work with WP:CENT to embiggen the communication levels of wikipedia. Your efforts to keep things fair in establishing the WP:EQUAL proposal. (note: This is the very first, and original "Dual Boot Barnstar" to be awarded. ;))

Thanks for your work. —

 ? 

13:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!

rootology/equality

16:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Good work! Please make sure to include the caveat that some must be more equal than others in that policy. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

• License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
• News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
• WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by

talk

) at 04:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

LeBron James

Could you semi for longer? It's just off two consecutive one month protections. "13:07, March 25, 2009 Juliancolton (talk | contribs) changed protection level for "LeBron James" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 17:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC))" "13:48, April 26, 2009 Tanthalas39 (talk | contribs) changed protection level for "LeBron James" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC))" Cheers, Enigma^msg 04:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I just got it.

rootology/equality

05:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Call for you to recuse the AMiB RFAR

Thanks for letting me know. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 14:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Contraception

Heh. The closing admin declared "no consensus", told people to work it out on talk, so someone starts edit warring it into a redirect, and that's the

version that gets protected? :-) (heck, far as I'm concerned it _should_ be the redir, it just ticks me off that people ignored the AfD result and implemented their preferred solution with minimal talkpage use...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk

) 18:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that stuff (especially after AFD) is always silly. I just saw the volume of edits, the 12kb-13kb size constantly flipping to 300b and pulled the plug. Which is the Right Version? :P

rootology/equality

18:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, but I think it involves FORMAT C: somewhere... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Manual of Style

Thanks for revising your action on the

WP:MOS. Let's hope it works. Finell (Talk)

21:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify on edit war

To what edit war did you refer? I've already responded to Kotniski, but because it seemed more like a personal question than an article-specific one, I did so on the user's talk page. Also, I'm pretty confident that K's first reversal of my contributions was due to a typo on my part: I'd written "inside" instead of "outside" by mistake. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC) (Moved from user page 0:03, 30 May 2009 (EST)

EDIT: I've sent a message to MB asking said user to identify the dispute. Still, if you are in a position to clear things up, I'd welcome it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry

sorry i posted in the archived an/i section; it wasn't closed yet when i made my edit. i was just feeding him anyway - good call. untwirl(talk) 17:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Petri Krohn

Although I criticized Petri for his statement, one year block might be too harsh. I suggected an alternative at ANI (topic ban plus civility parole). If this would be supported by you and/or others, of course...Biophys (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming out

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your participation. Also when I first read question 15, I thought you were asking my position rather than poison, oh well, you got the long answer. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by

talk

) at 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: FYI

Thanks for the heads up, but I swear I mean no harm and I won't get further involved if I'm wrong in the matter.

weburiedoursecretsinthegarden

12:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't... I have no idea what is going on here but it is better to simply go with the original and keep them deleted for now. I'm really sorry - I honestly haven't the foggiest what's going on.

weburiedoursecretsinthegarden

13:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recent activity

I'd really like to see you active more in the article namespace and less in the project namespace. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Me too. I work more comfortably on articles when I have long, protracted blocks of time, which I rarely do these days. What specifically don't you like about my work in the project space?

rootology/equality

22:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine to be passionate about things. But you've subverted your user signature, your user page, and your recent edit activity into advocacy for a particular proposal, for example. Imagine if you'd redirected that energy into an article. Just something to consider. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The equality thing in general is something I've been thinking about for years, even back 'in the day', but it's hit as big of a brick wall of apathy as it can get (I was actually thinking yesterday about dumping my sig, which I may as well do now). I do get passionate, but only on really specific points. For the recent activity do you mean my being more vocal again about BLP stuff (I've been on that forever)? Or the equality stuff? But I get what you're saying. Like all of us, we end up getting hung up on our pet issues. I was actually telling someone either Friday or Thursday last week that I was purging my watchlist of most dramaz hotspots after the AMiB RFAR I brought closes.

T

) 23:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

TheThankful

This user has resumed his disruptive activities following his unblock. In particular when I warned him that if he continued arguing on the talk page of Europe (I suppose the same point but it was essentially trolling because he had no edit to suggest), he reported simultaneously on

WP:WQA

and

WP:ANI. Please can some oreder be restored here? TheThankful is continuing to be disruptive and is harrassing me by this forum shopping. Thanks, Mathsci (talk

) 22:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you asking here, but I kinda have my hands full timewise before taking something else big up. If it's all over ANI, it's as visible as something can get short of RFAR.

T

) 23:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oversight bit

What's interesting to me is that Jayjg's status was changed twice in June 2006, but the story did not break publicly until August 2006. Around June 8, several members of the then-standing Arbitration Committee thought that some of his oversights were outside the scope of the oversight tool (the policy at the time was murky). There was also note of an anonymous complaint from an admin in "good standing." Arbitrators actually discussed some of the edits later exposed in August. One arbitrator sagely predicted that the oversight of older edits that had already dumped would make it easy to find such edits using dumps and mirrors.

There does not appear to have been a formal vote on this subject. Perhaps Brion Vibber became satisfied that oversight would not be overused in the future (or perhaps he was convinced it was not in fact overuse—I cannot tell). In any event, several commentators tended to agree with Jayjg's rationale, and only about three strongly disagreed with the oversights.

These discussions were one motivation for developing an internal log feature for the tool. Early on the oversight log was public, but it was turned off because it made it trivially easy to find things that were freshly oversighted. However, no private log was implemented at that time, so oversighting was completely blind—even to other oversighters.

I think that Wikipedians ought to know that the June 2006 status changes stemmed from the very same overuse of oversight that later became public. There's not another hidden abuse that I'm aware of. Cool Hand Luke 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've looked into this as well, and while I have some unanswered questions, I think the most likely explanation is that people were jittery about a powerful new tool.

The user rights log shows that Jayjg's oversight was removed by a steward and a developer [7]. First, it's important to remember that the stewards are only empowered to act on an emergency basis (I assume the same applies to developers) and that in the absence of a finding by Arbcom to confirm the removal, the default position is to restore it when the emergency is over.

Jon Søby removed access on 6 June 2006 and restored it 5 minutes later. I can't find this in the archives of m:RFP, so someone must have contacted him privately. (Also, several hours had passed from Jayjg's last use to the user rights change, so it was not apparently an emergency.) Since he restored it 5 minutes later, there obviously wasn't time for deliberations or even detailed explanations. I am tempted to suggest that someone who was using these edits as evidence of something noticed that they had disappeared and made some kind of "emergency request", but that is of course purest speculation.

When Brion removed oversight and restored it 2 days later, he did leave a notice on wiki. [8] [9] Obviously I don't know what was discussed in email.

From looking at the edits themselves, it appears that the removal (and even Luke's casual use of the term "overuse" above), hinge on two questions.

1. It is clear that if an editor posts to another editor's talk page, "Your name is Joe Smith of 123 Fake Street, Springfield," that is oversightable. What if instead, the editor posts "What do you think about my new web site www.greentreefrogs.info", where the web site actually contains the personal information of several editors and admins? Is that also oversightable or not?
2. Should oversight be used to remove edits that are months or even years old, when the edit would be eligible for oversight if it had been made recently?

So I don't think it's fair to say that Jayjg "overused" oversight. He certainly used it a lot, 83 of the first 150 logged actions are his. I think it is more fair to say that he used it in an unanticipated way, by (a) hiding evidence of logged out editing, and (b) hiding revisions that were several years old, that would have been eligible for oversight at the time if oversight had existed. At least (a) is routine and uncontroversial today, and as far as I know, no one has ever really discussed (b). Thatcher 13:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, guys. I'm 1) Amazed that no one actually asked the Question, after the offer was put up after so long; and that 2) no one ever really offered/bothered to go after this bit of often sideline-discussed information until now. These explanations from two people that I trust are basically the equivalent of watching the Star Wars prequels: "Really? That was all? Everyone was expecting he like blew up a planet when he was a kid, too."

T

) 15:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SALIN

Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. That whole thing was so outta policy and random it boggled my mind. Got a lone cockroach in your kitchen? Clearly, you need to white phosphorous your apartment in response.

T

) 17:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SALIN

Sorry, I misunderstood the whole "note that IP/new accounts may be discounted if their motives are suspect/their opinions not based in policy" thing. I note that a large number of the IP votes you have unmarked are not based on policy. Ironholds (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but they're still always allowed a voice, is the thing. Its on the closing admin to discount nonsense, not people involved in the debates. Refute, sure. Manipulate/mark out? Absolutely not.

T

) 22:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotation marks again!

WP:MOS. They have weakened the long-standing, pre-edit-war guideline and added back the paragraph about American English versus British English, which is not and never has been any part of the reason for the MOS's adoption of the logical quotation style guideline. In fact, usage is not consistent on either side of the Pond: some American publications use the so-called British style, and some British publications use the so-called American style. Also, do we really need to have a dispute tag in this section just because there is a recurring minority who argues with, but never achieves consensus for, changing the long-standing guideline for using logical quotation? The minority argument comes up every 3 or 4 months, and the result is always to keep the logical quotation guideline. This is all confusing to conscientious editors who come to the MOS for guidance. Finell (Talk)

07:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And now User:Mchavez is edit warring over this. Finell (Talk) 08:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection of the MOS is not the result I expected or wanted. Further, it is not tollerable for the MOS to be full protected. As I said before, and you agreed, everyone who works productively and collaboratively on the MOS should not be shut out becasue 2 editors keep changing this one, long-stable section of the MOS without consensus for changing it. You agreed to the solution of blocking editors who edit war over this issue. Please enforce that solution, and unprotect the page. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 03:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And this time it is some different people again, and I'm not going to start blocking wide swathes of users; edit warring over the MOS of all things is just pointless. I will happily unprotect if there is consensus and I have no problem if another admin unprotects. I'm not going to protect that page again, a third time. If you would like to request unprotection to take it up the

T

) 03:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rootology: thank you for protecting the page. I see nothing wrong with such protection from time to time when MoS is being treated like a sandbox. It would be a pity if protection became more permanent, since it makes routine maintenance and copy-editing difficult. Tony (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

RfBs

FYI: [10]. Just wanted to point out that poll you proposed has already been performed, and the results are available for anyone to see. See my comment in the section above yours replying to Rlevse, as well. Nathan ^T 02:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GoneAwayNowAndRetired. You have new messages at Dank's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

AMIB

Rootology, I'd suggest that both you and AMIB are getting a little too personal and you should perhaps take a step back. Not meant as an attack, warning or anything else, just my observation of the tone of the discussion. I'd put a similar note on AMIB's page, but I'm even less certain how that would be taken. Sorry to be a bother. Hobit (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Writing as a fan

Heh. Sounds like me and Atwater-Donnelly. They've never given me anything for editing the Wikipedia article, but I used to run their website, and have scored a couple of free CDs over the years. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No free CDs for me, and with the bands I've drank with I've bought at least as many rounds as they have (it's not like they're rolling in

T

) 19:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Some shameless thankspam!

User:Colds7ream/RfA

Groklaw

Wednesday, June 10 2009 @ 02:54 AM EDT [11]. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

MS crawling our GFDL content is a wholly separate issue; it's GFDL. They can do whatever they want with it, good or bad, as long as it's attributed. The Weir/Brown thing on the endless standards debate isn't a paid editing thing, however, in any way. That's a pure

T

) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However, have you ever thought of Wikipedia's reputation in the eyes of the masses before pushing for 'paid editing'? Be assured that whatever the limits you'd place on that concept, the image which will be seen by outsiders (media, observers and analysts) and readers would be totally different than the image you're trying to convey by placing those limits. The burden on Wikipedia admins would be high. Wikilawyering would attain a max level. You'd be ending up with paid editors working for company X edit warring with paid editors of its rival and other neutral editors. A total mess that neither you nor ArbCom would be able to fix. We are debating a MAJOR change in our editing process; this is not a simple FlaggedRev issue which would work in favour of Wikipedia since readers would trust that what they read has been okey'ed. You know more than most editors here (because of your experience) that Wikipedia has not yet attained a high level of trust among academics, scientists, students, media and the general populace.

It is not the right time to say the least, Root. You have to fix the already existing problems (NPOV, COI, etc) before pushing for something as important as this. Once the field is ready for implementation, then that'd be the right time to push it. This is only the 8th year of the existence of the project; that's nothing. Let's fix the existing problems first. After that, what you are asking for would become much more acceptable; not to Jimmy or me or any other Wikipedian opposing it but to everyone around the world. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA stock questions

I think you're asking too many stock questions at RFA.

talk

) 13:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and which to cut out. The problem is, though, is that some of those questions have to be asked to get people on the record after some of the crazier abuses we've seen lately. Which in your opinion are most extraneous beside my last fun one?

T

) 15:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Stifle here... Please see
  Wikipedia talk:RFA#Amount of questions and consider limiting yourself to 2 or 3 of the questions you feel are most relevant in determining the suitability of the particular candidate you are asking. Unleashing a battery of your questions could be seen as selfish and may discourage other users from asking questions that may be more immediately relevant to the candidate. –xeno^talk
  18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  Further to the above, if you had tailor-fit your questions, you would've realized that asking Mazca if he is over the age of majority was a waste of a question because he openly discloses his age on his userpage. –xeno^talk 19:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• For the "other accounts" question, you could simply ask the candidate to disclose other accounts, if any. If they say they don't want to reveal it publicly, you could follow up afterwards. Enigma^msg 18:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) It may also be good to consider not asking questions that directly attempt to invade a user's privacy. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, guys. I dropped a long answer here. I feel stupid now, like my using these questions have turned me into the new Kurt or DougsTech or something.

T

) 23:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Reward board

At the top of the RFC you say that there has been no consensus previously on whether paid editing is ok. Does the existence of the

WP:RB not suggest that there previsouly has been consensus? It was put to AfD in 2008 and survived but not many people voted. I'm tempted to be bold and add a note about this being allowed currently at the top of the RFC as from the talk page (Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#And_another_thing and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Reward_Board) it seems as though not many people are aware it exists. I'll leave it to you to decide if it should be there or not. Smartse (talk

) 16:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's up to you, really. I don't 'own' the RFC. :)

T

) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Link

[12]. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Commented on your second proposal. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it has been compromised. (see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

I already have a sleeper account on the Arbcom! And I'm actually both

T

) 02:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I actually use fairly complex pass phrases with idiosyncratic mixes of absurd character sequences that I change semi-monthly, at least. After I passed RFA, I really upgraded this one... O.G. paranoia from when I used to work with some really hardcase network security guys, one of whom had a background in cryptography. Crazy but wonderful Russian guy, his typical password would be something like:

nMi:Ud(o`g3[<Z`cj+)"'Q%EaS*e>P^yN-2[:sD";ljr`TJDs,{Y+_fpJWHWA|Hwn>P3-qJK3G1p=I%u}hKd+;_V3&\"CtXw}D.UH6~*\\O_e_xwhz;$95[mp?=[Y]tW

Totally insane. I wonder how long my patience with something like that would last, having to load up it from an encrypted keyring app (which to be done right, would be locked down with an RSA token, and locked on a 256-bit AES encrypted unique USB keyring that had a thumbprint reader requirement to be read on my unique PC that only runs on an encrypted volume with a remote content kill mechanism in case of theft...).

T

) 02:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Boothroyd

For the record, I understand the arguement for ultimately deleting the article; and I have no problem if that is the way the community goes on this. However, you were well aware of the terms of the article's userfication, and you were also well aware that there were terms on that userfication that gave 1 week to the parties involved to bring this up to standard. When you start the MFD two days early, it shows a clear spite for the people who were working on the article, and disrespect towards me as an admin. A compromise solution was being worked out, and that you short circuited that compromise seems to serve little purpose except as a personal "screw you" statement to JoshuaZ and ChildofMidnight. I have never been a particular fan of either of them, but there is no need for this. I am not sure why this had to be done two days early, and I am disenheartend that you had such a level of disrespect towards me that you felt that my involvement here in attempting to work out a solution that would minimize tension on both sides wasn't worth paying attention to. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, this was honestly not intended as a slight toward you. I honestly, and truly, strongly believe that in regards to BLP matters, the anti-BLP extremists or the BLP-deniers shouldn't be shown an inch of leeway. I did end up searching all over for sourcing out of morbid curiosity, and could come up with nothing. If I didn't believe the article had no possibility of salvage, I wouldn't have done it, but I will forever till the day I retire refuse to give any deference to internal politics or ego (not yours--Josh and CoM in this case) vs. BLP subjects. The internal users will lose that fight every time, as far as I am concerned. I hate to sound harsh, but... even if it was some other user had drafted up the user space, I would have been doing this. I won't lie that Josh doing it leaves a nasty taste in my mouth, as he has gamed BLP in the past to the highest level (and I'm unsure why he hasn't banned from anything BLP-related) but I promise you this wasn't intended as a slight toward you. I left a note on the MFD after you posted there, specifically endorsing your suggestion of the MFD length and left a note at the top of the MFD, before you posted here.

T

) 14:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining all of that, and that you for this small public gesture as well: [13]. Small gestures go a long way towards maintaining a collegial working relationship. I do understand and support the strict attitude towards BLPs; I just have no opinion on this specific BLP. From an outside observer, this just gives the appearance of a personal conflict between two camps, with this article being ultimately inconsequential anymore. It just feels like each side is now continuing this out of personal spite towards their "opponents" and its not about the encyclopedia anymore. Your explanation above helps me understand that you may not be doing this, but in general this still feels like it has gone way beyond the article in question, and is now about who did what to whom two years ago, and who is going to get revenge for that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

question

Was this confirmed offwiki, or is there a place you can point others? Syn 00:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom knows[14], but given his odd nature about some stuff I'm not surprised he didn't announce it in public. I was kind of surprised it hadn't been tagged to be honest when the other was.

T

) 01:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)