User talk:Reguyla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Kumioko)
Jump to: navigation, search

There are 13 weeks, 6 days, 20 hours, 4 minutes and 41 seconds until my punishment expires. (refresh)

until sense on the project kicks in

A belated welcome![edit]

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Reguyla. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome!

[Not sure if this is the right template, or if it's one of yours, but it seems to come with cookies, so welcome. Cheers.]

Neotarf (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Reguyla (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I just wanted to say thank you to those that voted in my ban review. Special thanks go out to Fluffernutter for requesting the review as well as The Land and Protonk for their outstanding job moderating the review and their closing remarks. Reguyla (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit Filter[edit]

@NawlinWiki: Thank you, I believe there are at least 4 filters with something to do either with my name or the words Ban or Abuse. I don't remember what it said but there was a few times that I triggered 3 or 4 edit filters at one time. Reguyla (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

After reviewing the names of the edit filters and the timeframes of my edits, any one of the following could contain something related to me. Unfortunately I cannot narrow it down farther.
102, 260, 294, 466, 579, 611, 619, 623, 624, 628. I hope this helps. Reguyla (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Adjusted #102. The rest were responding to those horrible things you were saying ;) , not to your name. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Great thans for looking. Reguyla (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment about the standard offer[edit]

I am going to try my best not to comment at obvious trolling, but in case anyone looked here for a comment, since I cannot edit the discussion where it was made, I wanted to clarify a comment that Roger Davies made. The Arbcom, at no time, offered me a "standard offer". In fact, they consistently told me that the decision was not theirs to make, that they wouldn't make it even if it was and that it was a community decision and BASC denied my request repeatedly.

Aside from that, I just want to put this tragic tale of abuse and corruption behind me. Too much time and resources were wasted on the Kumioko Witch hunt by everyone including me. Regardless of any offers that may or may not have been made in the past, I beleive in this project (eventhough I believe it has lost its way in many respects) and it was obvious that members of it were willing to employ any tactic and inflict any casualties in order to keep me out. This "deal" was, IMO, a reasonable compromise for everyone to move on and for everyone to save some face and for the collateral damage to the project and its members and potential future members to cease. The damage that was being inflicted through edit filters, range blocks and unnecessary reversions of edits, as well as my comments and emails was causing uncalculable damage to the project and I felt it needed to end. I for one am glad it did.Reguyla (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • See you in six months, Reguyla. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I hope thats true. There is still a lot of opportunity and desire for people to blame me for stuff or Joe Job my account so we'll see. Reguyla (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
      • And now it's one day less: we're making progress. Try and forget old griefs, if you can, or as much as you can: both sides will need to do so, since rehashing it will only make them fester. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
        • [1] = "Yuuuuup. Kumioko writes some great content." Lol, no wonder I was banned. You too Drmies, take care. Reguyla (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
In 6 months, if you haven't socked/evaded your ban, I'll support re-instatement. See, I'm not inflexiable :) GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
No worries GoodDay I can easily stop myself from socking. As I stated in the review the only reason I did it was because I considered the original ban and how it was carried out to be illegitimate and simply ignored it, but I still went out of my way not to hide who I was eventhough some tried to prevent me from signing. So you don't need to worry about the if's of me socking. The problem is there are still folks out there who will try and make it look like me, and I created accounts from a lot of public places that could appear like socking if someone else creates an account there. So we'll see how long it is before someone finds something to accuse me of. You may not be one of them, but there are some clever individuals in the community that don't like me and will try and make sure I don't come back. Reguyla (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Homs governorate offensive[edit]

I found some strangeness on a redirect if anyone is watching this page and wants to fix it. Take a look at Homs governorate offensive. Its an article and a redirect all in one. Maybe we should choose one or the other? Reguyla (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks for spotting, looks like someone didn't quite know how to do the move they intended to. The Land (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Your welcome and thats kind what I thought too. Reguyla (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Obvious copyright problems on Rubin (radar)[edit]

Here is another article problem for anyone who may be interested. Rubin (radar) appears to be mostly a cut and past copyright/plagiarism violation from the "reference" websites. The article itself meets notability but it needs a pretty much complete rewrite. Reguyla (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No offense, and I'll be glad to see you back when scheduled, but talk pages of blocked users should not be used for purposes other than discussing your block. I'm sure everyone appreciates your effort, but perhaps you'd be better keeping your attention away from en.wikipedia until your block expires. Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
No offense taken but this edit doesn't really reflect someone who would welcome me back in 6 months. I do find it rather ironic though that in my review several admins and contributors attempted to convince other members of the community that I am not here to "build an encyclopedia", when any idiot who looks at my contribution history can clearly see that is bullshit (especially since my contributions exceed the vast majority multiple times over) and every effort is being made to prevent me from doing that. But oh well, no use crying over spilt Vodka. I also appreciate the suggestion that I take a break but unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you wish to interpret it) I use Wikipedia almost everyday and often multiple times. Its also well known where I work that I "Used to" edit fervently so a lot of people bring problems like this to me that they think might need attention. Technically your right though and I am not just dropping every problem I see, I ignored multiple incidents of vandalism and other problems and only dropped 2 here that were sufficiently worthy to invoke IAR. But if the climate has changed on the project and copywritten material and plagiarism are less concerning than in the old days feel free to ignore my suggestion. Worse case scenario this is just a note to myself and in 6 months when the interests of the project take precedence over abuse and Wikipedia politics, the changes will still be here and I will take care of them then. Reguyla (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Stuff that needs done[edit]

I am making these notes for myself. If someone sees them and feels compelled to do them, great, if not, I will fix upon my return from banishment.

  1. Bayan (khan) is a person and needs the Persondata template, an infobox and birth and death cats. Reguyla (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    Also should let the AWB folks know about this one so they can refine the is article about a person logic. Reguyla (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Copyright and plagiarism problems on Rubin (radar). Reguyla (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    Will rewrite and repost in Feb if not already done. Saved a copy offline for review and rewrite. Reguyla (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  3. The Theresa Gallagher linked under Judges here is not an actress so this link is not correct. Reguyla (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  4. Personal property has misplaced redirect syntax at the bottom of the introduction section. Reguyla (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  5. Forrest Gump, the last line under sequel doesn't make any sense. Reguyla (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  6. B. J. Penn (United States Navy) reads like a resume and needs to be cleaned up and rewritten. Need to make sure this is vetted through other members of the community to ensure no conflict of interest.Reguyla (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  7. AWB is converting fl. to [[Floruit|fl.]] on Wiki, will add links later. Need to let the AWB folks know that this probably shouldn't happen for non Wikipedia Wiki's. Reguyla (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  8. AWB is adding the Orphan template to articles at Wikia when Autotagger is used. Again this should not be happening for non Wikipedia Wiki's. Reguyla (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  9. Diego Suárez Corvín needs an infobox, fill out the rest of the persondata template and additional cats. Reguyla (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  10. Add article for Ordre du Mérite combattant. Translation from French Wikipedia. Article on French WP] Reguyla (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    Add List of Medal of Honor recipients buried in Arlington National Cemetery (maybe without the list of though, thats not really needed). Once done add it to the template and the see also sections of the recipients who are buried there. Reguyla (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  11. Talk:Craig Lucas has the WikiProject Template for Georgia (country) but should have the one for the State. Reguyla (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    Also Talk:Laura Ryan apparently. Reguyla (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    and 2 more: Talk:Richard T. Warner, Talk:Wesley Woods. Reguyla (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    And Talk:Cherokee Path. Reguyla (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  12. Submit KY-7 for deletion or redirect to STU-III. Reguyla (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  13. The cleanup listing link in the table here still points to the toolserver. It either needs to be replaced or removed. Reguyla (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  14. Advanced persistent threat contains obvious copy vio. Its already tagged but I will keep watching it until its fixed. Reguyla (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  15. Third Reserve Army of Observation needs refs or at least the unref template. Reguyla (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  16. HMS Thunder Child needs a space after the comma in the lede sentence. Reguyla (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  17. Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 26 - Needs a lot of work and Wikifying. Might contain copyvio. Reguyla (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  18. Fix Template:WWIIJapaneseAuxiliaryShips. Contains multiple redircts to other Wiki's. Should create locally or leave them as red links. Reguyla (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  19. Leader Development and Assessment Course needs cleanup and rewording of several things. Reguyla (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  20. Why do we have 2 nearly identical articles on the same topic Expulsion of Poles by Nazi Germany and Expulsion of Poles by Germany. Need to consolidate and merge. Reguyla (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  21. HMS Active (1799) links too James Alexander Gordon (the radio personality) but the link should be to James Gordon (Royal Navy officer) Reguyla (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  22. VX (nerve agent) has a hidden comment that belongs on the talk page if at all. Reguyla (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  23. Maharana Pratap, seems to have been written as a translation by someone with limited english and grammar. Its a good start, but it needs some gramatical cleanup and wikifying. Also, the battles in the article link back to the article itself and probably should be standalone articles. Reguyla (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  24. Lieutenants Protection Association needs a reference or a Unreferenced template. Reguyla (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  25. HMS Cheshire should be a redirect vice a DAB page. Only one link on the page. No need to be a dab. Reguyla (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  26. John Traynor (Royal Marine) needs Persondata template and birth and death cats at a minimum. Might even be a hoax article. Reguyla (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  27. Robert A. McIntosh needs to WikiProject banners. Also needs categories, links, cleanup and inline refs. Reguyla (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  28. John H. Miller, Pierre N. Charbonnet, Jr. and Max Baratz need WikiProject banners and other work as well. Probably lots of others too. Good thing there are plenty of experienced admins on this site to do all the content work since they are blocking all the content creators and the ones who are "actually building an encyclopedia"! Reguyla (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  29. Expand Alonzo Cushing, add see also link to Civil War recipients page here. Reguyla (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
    Add List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Gettysburg. Reguyla (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  30. Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Canada) needs expansion, stub tag, refs and the Milhist talk page banner. Reguyla (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  31. this edit needs to be reverted. Might be vandalism or a good faith edit, but its wrong. Reguyla (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  32. Let's see how long this vandalism stays. Reguyla (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  33. Why don't we merge Uncle Sam and Uncle Sam billboard. Both are small articles and relate to the corps subject. Reguyla (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  34. Maybe someone should ask DPL bot why its adding the same template to articles over and over like this. Reguyla (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    @JaGa:, Greetings, it looks like DPL bot is messing up articles by dropping the incoming links template over and over. I know you haven't edited in a month and are certainly busy but if you are going to leave your bot running while away may I suggest checking on it from time to time? I would have left a note on the bots page to stop it from damaging the articles but I'm sitting through a punitive block until February for identifying admin abuse and criticizing Arbcom's failures and that is more important than the project in some peoples views. Reguyla (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  35. Template:Forts in India only has a small fraction of the forts in India. See Template:Forts in Maharashtra as an example. So whats the point of the main India template? Its probably better to group them under their District. Also, many of the disrtricts also have lists of the forts in that district so is the template needed at all?
    Most of the forts in these templates are not listed in the Milhist project or in the Fortifications subproject and need to be added. Reguyla (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  36. Remove the WPUS template from Hitachi Magic Wand. Nothing to do with US. Reguyla (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  37. Create a redirect to Moorish Castle#The Tower of Homage for the Tower of Homage linked to in Template:Fortifications of Gibraltar.Reguyla (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  38. Remove the random B at the bottom of Siege of Acre.Reguyla (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  39. Mine Creek Confederate order of battle needs to have the same WikiProject banners as Battle of Mine Creek. Reguyla (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  40. Wikipedia:Elections is very, very out of date and needs to be updated. Reguyla (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Category for deletion[edit]

@WilliamJE: - I may catch hell for this since I am blocked till February, but I saw the notice you left on my old talk page and I wanted to let you know that account has been abandoned. Its fine with me if you delete that category though. I understand and agree with the reasoning. Reguyla (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirects on old account[edit]

I have made your old account redirect to this page (so you shouldn't have the above problem again). Sorry for making so many edits, I had trouble getting it to work right. —Neotarf (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Reguyla (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem. —Neotarf (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

RFA is dying[edit]

I haven't posted for a while because frankly this project is spiraling faster to its own death and I find myself losing interest in it with every passing day. There simply aren't enough people here anymore who want to build an encylcopedia and too many who just want to be in charge and in control.

For example, I find it very amusing that someone started a discussion about lowering the pass requirement at RFA here to a simple majority because of the growing ineffectiveness of the RFA process and a bunch of clowns start insulting them for submitting the idea. I think its a pretty good idea myself, much better than the ideas (which do not exist) that the opposers are submitting.

Submitting a link showing that there are 1393 sysops and then inferring there isn't a problem only shows their lack of understanding of the problem. If they did understand it, they would realize that only about 100-150 admins actually do anything. All the rest are just dead weight and either only edit occassionally, oftentimes once or less a month or not at all. They would additionally realize that of those approx. 150 admins, about 20 or so are abusive and/or are incompetent at being admins and should have the tools removed (several should never have gotten them in the first place) from them because they are more of a hindrence to the project than an asset. There is no doubt that RFA is dying and I say let it die. As long as a few people are willing to submit, then some will argue that it works, which it clearly does not. They would also know that the admin related areas have increasing backlogs, vandalism stays for longer periods of time and spam is making it through at increasing rates.

The Wikipedia culture has degraded to such a point that in order to fix any of our problems they have to be so bad they are ineffective or they stop working completely, so that the community will get off their collective asses and fix it. Otherwise, the community just criticizes those who try and fix the problems or kick them out of the project so they can protect their empires and continue their ongoing and longterm patterns of abuse against editors they don't like, to prove they are the ones with power.

What a disgraceful and disappointing project this place has become. Wikipedia had, and continues to have, such potential, only to be wasted because entrenched admins and a few of their supporters or those who lack the morale courage to do the right thing sit quitely and watch the abuse. The project needs editors willing to do the right thing and get rid of the few abusive and deadbeat admins dragging it down. I have read no less than three discussions recently where even admins have admitted having some admins in mind that should be cut, but they fail to do anything because its too much work and they just don't care. Perhaps my banishment for critizing these abusers sent the desired message to the community of what happens when they are criticized! Reguyla (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Kudpung, Dennis Brown: As I have said before in other venues I think highly of both of you but I couldn't disagree more with your sentiments at the RFA page about banned users. Not only are your preceptions wrong, but they are insulting. RFA is broken and has been for a long time. It doesn't matter if the editor is a good one or not, passing RFA has as much to do with luck as it does about hiding in the shadows. Few people are going to pass RFA in current times unless they are careful and plan it. Things like Voting on the winning side of stuff for deletion/discussion to make sure their scores are high. Voting on RFA, doing the occassional cleanup edit and carefully doing some article development without stepping on the toes of whomever owns that article in the process. I am quite frankly surpirsed that both of you would make such comments instead of actually doing something about the process or the minority of corrupt and abusive admins that we all know exists but no one wants to take the time to do anything about, because I am an example of what happens when you criticize admins. I will be the first one to admit that people need access to the tools that currently make up the admin toolset, but they do not need to be in the current package nor does the process of getting them or removing them need to be as gruelling as it is. Hell, we all know that if the majority of the admins ran for RFA today they would fail, so what does that tell you about the RFA process and the admin corps? It speaks volumes to me because I listen. I would also counter that I have in fact come up with ideas to change RFA as have others, you have too, but they don't pass because it would weaken the perceived power of the admins and many don't want that. They want to be in power and will do whatever they need to in order to keep it. That includes those editors who are not admins but want to be. So they vote the process change down because it weakens their future want to have role in the admin clan. Also, saying good candidates don't want to run because RFA is a joke. Good candidates have run and didn't pass. Some examples include Solarra, Koavf, Dodger67 and plenty of others. The fact is, Adminship isn't that big of a deal. You and your peers make it a big deal for various reasons, but its not and was never meant to be. The admin tools should be easy to get and easy to take away. If someone screws up repeatedly or shows a pattern of abuse, then they should lose the tools, no muss or fuss. Frankly your arguments that critics of the RFA process are just banned editors only to be ignored is both stupid and incorrect. I thought better of you than that but I guess Wikipedia has that affect on people. Especially to those of us that still believe in the project regardless of the childish bullshit and bureaucracy that goes on here these days. Reguyla (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the actual resistance to change came from the very quarter that so loudly , boisterously, and rudley complains with the same excess of mantras and diatribes, stabs in the back, and general disruption, that claims itself to be the entire Wikipedia's handful of most elite content contributors. What gives those esitors the right to be so obnoxious? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Kudpung:, this is Kumioko's current only account, not a new user. Reguyla, it's one thing editing this page to note things you will be doing if and when you return, which has the added benefit of noting issues for others - people are willing to turn a blind eye. It's a very different thing to be calling users to your page to discuss meta topics. Please remember that you are currently a banned user and whilst that is the case, you should not be participating in building the encyclopedia. If you carry on calling users to your talk page using the ping functionality, I will be removing talk page access for the duration of your ban. WormTT(talk) 09:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
@WTT - Believe me WTT, I am all too aware that some within the community are not interested in building an encyclopedia and have no issue with preventing others like me from doing it either. The list of edits above is a very short one and many more have not been done. The list I am keeping offline is 10 times the length of that one. I keep that list partially to show the types of things I would be fixing if I was allowed to edit and as proof that I am watching things and that those things are not getting done. It is partly in the hopes that someone will see them and do them and partly for me.
Also, I was banned as a justification to keep me from criticizing some of those that aren't here to build one to set an example. I am attempting to abide by my ban the best I can, and as I stated before I like both Kudpung and Dennis. But what they said on the RFA page (not meta) was obviously incorrect and rather than ignore the issue I decided to comment. With that said, as I view these discussions from the outside, it is becoming more and more obvious that those within the "community" have either given up on the project and only continue to stroke their own egos for one reason or another or only care about protecting whatever articles they own. Its becoming more and more clear that building an encyclopedia is not what they are interested in doing and very few are still here for that. Of the few that I think do, none seems to be interested in getting rid of the trouble makers and would rather enforce bad policies against those like myself who are trying to build one. That seems to include you unfortunately. So if you feel that enforcing my block and setting an example is more important than building an encyclopedia and the edits I would do then feel free to do what you have to do. IMO though the Arbcom failed to do the right thing with my ban after being given ample opportunity and left it to the community to fix the disgrace of a ban that I was given which should have been immediately overturned. So it seems less than appropriate to come here looking for excuses to ban me for an occasional edit. Things would have been a lot different for a lot of people if the Arbcom would have done their job in the beginning so now isn't the time. They lost that opportunity. It should also be noted frankly that my "ban" was reduced to a 6 month block and the rules for blocks are different than those of bans. Reguyla (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
@Kudpung, as you are now aware I have been here for a very very long time and I have seen those attempts as well. I also know that they all failed and those failures are for various reasons including some admins and wanna be admins who want the process to stay the way it is and not change sabotaging it. You will not find me blocking any change to the process and I believe I supported every attempt to do anything in the past if only to try something. I also know you tried to change things yourself and after spending considerable time, that suggestion failed and ever since you have shown up to shoot down any other idea that's been submitted. Since many of them mirror your own sentiments in those discussions, it gives those of us who are familiar with things the impression of an attitude of "if its not my idea its a bad one". But the RFA process no longer works and needs to change. That is clear to pretty much everyone and saying that it has gotten better doesn't really help. It hasn't gotten better, there are simply so few RFA's these days, that it appears that way. Reguyla (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't realise your ban had been downgraded to a 6 month block - I stopped following that mess of a discussion before the end! I'd still advise that you don't bother with meta topics such as RfA, at least until you return - and even then for preference. It's not worth the hassle. But as to the rest of my comment, please ignore it - it's irrelevent. WormTT(talk) 12:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
No worries, I wish I could ignore the mess too.:-) Reguyla (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I know people continue to watch this page so I am going to comment on the ongoing discussions on the talk page of RFA.

  • It is now October 21 and its obvious that RFA is a failing process and I personally hope that continues because its the only way to fix it. What few candidates it does generate are far from enough to offset the flow of work or the number of admins leaving the site. All the admin arreas are completely overwhelmed because too few have access to the tools to do the tasks that need to be done. I agree with Townlake that it be closed and replaced with something else. I also agree with sentiments that the process of becoming an admin and removing the tools should be easier.
  • Administrator Chillum states that there are multiple ways to remove the tools and this is just plain false. Arbcom is the only one that can revoke the tools except in cases where the admin is inactive for an entire year or in obvious cases where the account has been compromised. Even when obvious abuse is evident, people just look the other way because the mentality is that its better to lose 100 editors than one admin even if they are abusive. This sentiment is 100% wrong.
  • Administrator Anne Delong mentioned that the admin process itself should be easier and I agree. However, I do not agree that an admin candidate does not need to know how to properly transclude their template if that is how the process is being done. This shows that they have the basic technical skills necessary for much of the work. If they do not know how to transclude their own RFA, then they do not know how to perform much of the work that they will have access too and do not need access to the tools. Anyone can delete a page or block a vandal, our admins need to have the ability to do the technical stuff as well, at least to a certain degree and this shows that they have the experience necessary to do the job.
  • I cannot participate in that discussion because I am still sitting out my block until February because I stood up to some abusive admins and corrupt arbitrators and I was banished for my insolence and show the community what happens when you criticize admins and the arbcom. But I refuse to just sit by and allow a handful of people to lie to the community and hide the truth. The RFA process has become a huge failure and needs to be completely redesigned including giving the tools to users and removing them. If the current admins do not think this is fair thats too bad. Multiple admins have themselves told me that there are several of their peers that they do not believe should be admins and should have had the tools removed, yet they do nothing and let them get away with it. IMO they had their chance to fix things and make them better and they either participated in the abuse themselves or sat by and watched the bullies and did nothing. So as far as I am concerned those who have allowed the abuse are little better than those who participated in it at this point and if that statement hurts some feelings then thats just tough shit. People do not want to be admins not just because its a bad job, they don't want to be admins because they have the morales to see that there are some abusive ones (probably some that are reading this statement, yes you!) and they do not want to be associated with those abusive individuals. Its a simple guilt by association situation. Reguyla (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Frankly I think that many people do not want to be admins because of a small group of people that take every opportunity to call them corrupt abusive bullies and liars regardless of the basis in reality. It is a thankless job that draws plenty of abuse and you have done your share to contribute to that problem. When your ban is reviewed in 6 months this continuation of past behavior will be an issue. Chillum 15:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Your partly right, but its only a few abusive ones that the rest of you don't do anything about that makes you all look bad. If the admins would police their own, it would go a long way towards improving their reputation. And just FYI, my block expires in February, there is no review. The review was already done and you got to voice your opinion that I not be allowed back so I couldn't continue to criticize abusiveness in the project. If more people were here to build an encyclopedia as I am it would be a better place. But too many are only here to stroke their own egos and be bullies. I am simply not going to be bullied just because I am not an admin and not exempt from the rules.Reguyla (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you are in for a bit of a surprise if you think that. Yes at the end of the 6 months this will be reviewed. The deal was that you made zero disruption for 6 months. I suggest you re-read the discussion that led to your current probationary period.
To quote the closing "Accordingly, the block on Reguyla should be adjusted to 6 months from today, counting this discussion as the community's offer to return and 6 months of zero disruption as Kumioko's acceptance". Zero disruption means zero, not more than zero. My advice is to just stop using Wikipedia completely for 6 months starting today, otherwise you will have a difficult time arguing that you made zero disruptions in the last 6 months. Insulting editors is a form of disruption greater than zero by the way. Chillum 16:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
First Chillum I am not "attacking" anyone. Not even you and its unfortunate you think I am. Its not my fault that you made a false statement and I called you out on it. As an admin you should know better. On the issue of my block expiration I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on that but looking at the statement, "Accordingly, the block on Reguyla should be adjusted to 6 months from today, counting this discussion as the community's offer to return and 6 months of zero disruption as Kumioko's acceptance" I would say its going to auto expire. Also Chillum for what its worth I have said before and I will state again here that I have no doubts that some will want to keep block going, particularly some of the abusive admins and arbs I have talked about. As I said before, there are less and less people here that are interested in building an encyclopedia as I am so it does not surprise me that some would not want me to keep building one so they can continue to be bullies to people who will sit by and take it. Also, I am not "disrupting" anything. If it wasn't for some other editors on the site's disruptive presence and attitudes towards editors whom they deem not worthy because they aren't admins, I would never have been banned or blocked in the first place and I would have done thousands of edits a month. So because a few abusive individuals are allowed to be bullies and I wasn't going to stand for it, I was banned as an example to the community and the project lost out on one of its highest output editors and on tens of thousands of edits.\
As some of my background because it appears you have been fooled into thinking I am not here to build an encyclopedia or to contribute to the project and I don't think we really interacted so you don't know the actual truth. I have more than 500, 000 edits, I have created nearly 1000 articles, I have over a dozen featured content and twice that number of GA's. I kept more than 100 WikiProjects alive for more than 2 years while making myself a target for article owners and WikiProjects that want to own their articles. Not to mention the US collaboration of the month I tried to restart and that failed because no one wants to collaborate anymore, the US newsletter that no one wanted or wanted to help with, the images I contributed and all the other things I did here. I can program in Lua and I can edit almost all of the templates and MediaWiki pages including most of the most complicated. I can even edit and interpret the edit filters. I have done more administrative work than most of the admins have. So its laughable to me if you really think I am not here to build an encyclopedia and if that is still the case then I challenge you to do better!
Regardless, nothing I have done here, on my talk page, could be considered disruption by any reasonable individual who didn't already have the desire for me to be banned. Look Chillum, I know you don't like me, I know you think I should be banned because I refused to take the abuse and I frankly don't care. I think its unfortunate because I don't think you are a bad person, but I think you have been convinced by others who I do not beleve are here for the right reasons. The bottom line here is that I am here to contribute to this enclyclopedia and I intend to do that whether you personally want me too or not. But don't pretend that you are uninvolved or that you only have the projects best interests at heart because we both know better ok.Reguyla (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Reguyla, you misunderstood my post: my point was that someone shouldn't need to have technical skill to nominate someone for adminship. However, I still maintain that it's not necessary to know every technical detail at the time of applying to be an admin. An admin who learns to use just a few of the admin processes (say, those needed for closing discussions or blocking inappropriate usernames) can help to decrease the backlogs in those areas, provided that they have experience in appropriately applying Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Having the common sense to ask for assistance or further explanation when beginning to work in a new area should be all that's required. In fact, some skills, such as history merges, can't be learned until after adminship because regular editors can't even see what the deleted page processes look like. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I partially agree with that Anne. As you may or may not know, I have long stated that I think the RFA process is too complicated and needs to be made easier. So in that aspect we agree. But as long as the process is what it is, IMO, an admin should be able to transclude their own RFA without breaking it if that is what they are doing. because its not the only process that uses transclusions and it shows they understand how those work. If they don't know how as you mention, they should ask before hand or see how it was done by others. Imagine if they try to edit a MediaWiki page and screw something up, they can do a lot of damage to the site, even if only temporarily. Additionally, a lot of the admin areas as you know require the admin tools so if they cannot even transclude their own RFA, then that is a red flag for me that they aren't ready. I do agree that its not necessary to be able to do all things admin right away and I have frequently advocated that, and I for one am glad they split off the Template editor rights so that some of the technical folks could help out there. I just find it a little unfair for lack of a better term that the only ones who get the tools these days are the ultra conservatives that do not get invovled in anything until after they get the tools and generally have zero technical ability. Especially when a lot of the admin areas are technical and need more participants as well. Reguyla (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't have any trouble with my own RfA, because someone else did the transcluding. However, when nominating someone else, I did have trouble with the clock feature which I had never come across before or since, so it can't be all that common in daily wiki-work, and I take issue with using it as a sole test of technical ability. I've made some other mistakes, too, but I feel no inclination to throw in the towel for that reason. Yes, a good mix of technical experts, content creators and people who can judge a consensus is what's needed - but since there is no particular limit to the number of admins, it's not as though accepting an admin with only some of these skills is keeping out those with the other skills. About ultra conservatives: I presume you mean conservative in behaviour, not politics. Encyclopedias are by nature fairly conservative, rather than trend-setting, and it's likely best if admins aren't wild and woolly risk-takers, but the admins with whom I've interacted seem to be a mixture of characters. I'm not sure what you mean, though, by "do not get involved in anything". What kind of anything did you have in mind? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree that in a perfect world we should have a mixture of admins and I would happily vote support on nearly any idea to change the RFA process or expand access to the various tools. People generally do what they are interested in, so even if they have access to the technical pages, if that is not something they are interested in, they generally won't mess with it. I generally just think adminship and the RFA process has become a hindrence to the project and will need to change for the survival of the project. For example, too much credibility is given to admins based solely on their having access to a couple extra tools that should be given fairly freely and be fairly easy to remove if abused. As it is, its nearly impossible to remove them even when the admins shows a pattern of abuse (due in large part to the incompetence of the Arbcom) so the process of getting access has become a gauntlet. So its a double edged sword. This has further caused the culture of Wikipedia to find any reason to oppose a candidate no matter how old or how petty rather than find a reason to Support. This in turn has made it so that only ultra conservative individuals who do gnomish work, vote on the popular side of stuff for discussion/deletion and don't get involved in things, and particiularly stay aware from contentious areas get the tools. These days in order to become an admin, the editor has to plan it and carefully manipulate the process to check the right blocks...or get very very lucky. Thats not how it should work. Those who do actively participate in contentious areas and vote their conscience of feelings on stuff for deletion/discussion don't stand a chance at getting the tools. This further means that the newer admins are less likely to stand up to abusers because they are, as the culture has evolved, more timid than their longer serving counterparts who have been here for years. Its a dirty cycle and there is no easy overnight fix, but it is a problem and is one of the contributors to the decline of the project and why people don't get promoted. As with jobs or even hobbies, if people do not get promoted (for lack of a better term), even if they enjoy what they do, they are going to move on to where their efforts are appreciated and where they are "trusted". It is because of the widespread lack of trust in Wikipedia that is a primary factor for its decline and the RFA process and adminship is at the center of that trust cycle. Editors see people they respect try and fail and then that disuades them from even attempting it and at some point they get tired of the drama and leave. Reguyla (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @HJ Mitchell: - I noticed your comments about wanting more admins at RFA and wanted to counter that, for someone who says you want more admins, you have a very low support rate. I have noticed you almost always vote oppose in RFA's so it makes me wonder why, if you want more admins, you would do that. Also as you know I am all too familiar with the abusive side of the admin corps and although I will be the first to admin that the abusive ones are only a very small percentage of the total admins, they are some of the most active on the site. What's worse is that others like yourself whom I believe are good admins and aren't abusive don't do anything about your abusive peers that we both know are there. So although you may not be a part of the problem of why there aren't enough admins, you are a factor when you don't do anything to rid the project of the abusive ones and rarely vote any new admins the tools. As I mentioned to Anne yesterday, the only admins that get selected these days are the keep to themselves, ultra conservative types who don't use the tools, so if you want help, you need to start giving active contributors who have experience and know how to use the tools the access. Otherwise saying that you want and need more help is just hot air. Reguyla (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RFA process discussion[edit]

Hammersoft — FeydHuxtable — Yunshui — GraniteSand — Graeme Bartlett — Nyttend — Fram — Noyster — LindsayH — Pigsonthewing: I noticed the discussion about the RFA process on WP:RFA and on the Village pump so I thought I would comment as well. As most of you know, I have been advocating for reform of the process for about the last 6 years and have, on numerous occassions, identified that the current situation was coming. Now its here and its time to do something. May I suggest a couple possibilities:

  1. Split the tools into groups (this has been mentioned before I know) but Rollback, Filemover and Template editor have all been split out and the world hasn't ended. The same will be true for the other tools as well.
  2. End the RFA process and just submit the requests to the Village pump for RFA's and RFB's. That idea is great IMO. There are so few of them these days, its not going to overload the Village pump system and if things pick back up we can go back to the RFA/RFB process someday...maybe. There is just no need for a whole venue for what has become a dead process.
  3. Create some Twinkle like functionality for creating the RFA submission. Why does it need to be done manually? We can create an app or add functionality to an existing app, like Twinkle (or preferably built into Twinkle) that transcludes the RFA and anything else we need. This could even include, notifying interested parties (its the same cast of characters mostly that follow them), transcluding the list of edit counts to the talk page and updating the RFA notification template. This would require a little bit of work, but there are several people capable of it, although I am not allowed to do it until February.
  4. Ideally, I would like to see a request for desysop process as well.

I don't really expect any of this recent RFA discussion to go anywhere but no one can say I didn't care enough about fixing this horribly broken process to provide an opinion. I also would not worry about the WMF interferring. They have had their opportunity to participate in reform on numerous occassions and declined so IMO the time for democracy with them is over. Do the RFC, establish the discussion and if the community decides to do it a certain way then do that. Don't get wrapped up in strawman arguments of what the WMF will or will not let the community do. I recently even added a somewhat baiting discussion topic at Meta and none of the WMFers even commented so as far as I am concerned, they don't get a say. Its our community, its our decision how to promote our editors, the WMF can keep the servers running and keep making bad software. We'll take care of the project stuff. Otherwise, they need to step up and get invovled and help the community fix the RFA process, which is unlikely. Reguyla (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • (1) I've commented before over here and at other locations that I feel the WMF is incompetent. Their ability to manage a large software project is suspect. I have little hope they would be able to help develop a better RfA process. Regardless, I agree it's highly unlikely they would ever step in to do something about it. (2) Whatever process we came up with, if the bureaucrats do not accede to it, it's a moot point. It's an open question at to whether the bureaucrats would be willing to promote candidates from a new system. (3) I've commented extensively before that we must come up with problems with the current system as the initial step in helping to determine what system should replace it. Further, we need strategic goals of what the new RfA is supposed to achieve (not in terms of numbers, but in terms of process). Once we have those in hand, only then can we start imagining a new system because only then can we measure it against our reasoned expectations for whether the system is workable. With no barometer, we have no way of gauging likelihood of success. (4) The desysop process has been proposed so many times my head spins just trying to count. It'll never work. The current means of desysopping is the absolute worst system we could have, except for all the other systems proposed. Yet, largely fundamental to acceptance of any new RfA process is the concept of a desysop process. (5) The whole thing is likely a moot point anyway. RfA is dead. Occasionally, there's the barest whisper of a heartbeat. But in reality, it's gone. A brain dead vegetable. (6) And possibly the most sobering point...regardless of how bad and/or dead RfA is, it is so entrenched there is no way to end it or replace it. There's an entire absurd bureaucracy built up around it, and countless essays, tools, watched pages, and so forth. Closing RfA is akin to removing the brain of a patient so as to save the patient. Sink or swim, this project is addicted to RfA. That isn't going to change. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Yep, I really don't have much hope in the WMF's leadership of the projects. I still have friends at the WMF (I know right, me with and there are still good people there, but the WMF doesn't have any desire to do anything about the projects. Its just free labor and an advertising medium for the software to them. I think closing down the RFA/RFB board is a good idea and just submit through the Village pump. Even if we change nothing else, that would at least consolidate the RFA's to an active and highly watched venue. Of course that doesn't solve the bigger problem of applicants, but I think by shuttering the RFA board, it will lose some of the stygma and some people will apply. I do agree about the result if the bureaus don't support it, but then again, the current process isn't working either and doing nothing isn't really a valid option at this point. If we have zero - 1 approval in November I think it'll be the nail in the coffin for the RFA process anyway. Your absolutely right about it being entrenched too and its unlikely to change, but its worth a try anyway. In truth I kinda wonder if the WMF doesn't want the project to die so they can "reinvent" it. Reguyla (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd be stunned if either crats or WMF put a spoke in the reform efforts. Some users occasionally misrepresent Philippe's Feb 2013 statement about ad hoc adminship, but if that becomes a problem it's easy enough to either ask him to clarify or just to link to his actual words, which were in fact quite supportive about community led reform. If this effort fails, it will be the community that takes it down. I agree that's quite likely to happen, but maybe it will show the way to a final successful attempt. Thanks for the ping Reguyla, and if no one else puts your ideas onto the page, I'll see about doing so once the time is right. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
All the WMF requires is that we have some sort of organized vetting process. It doesn't have to be the RFA process. It doesn't even have to be a vote. If the community said, we trust the Arbcom or the Bureaus to select 5 trusted editors a month, then that would be fine. All they require is that the community isn't just giving access to every editor without regard. In this case, moving it to the Village pump doesn't even change the process, it just moves it to a different venue so although its not the change I personally am looking for in the process, its at least an attempt to change the current problem. No problem on my comments, there is nothing I have said here that I haven't said 20 other times in similar venues and nothing that would not be expected. Be careful yourself though. Fighting about the abusiveness of the admins and their processes is what got me banned form editing. They got tired of my comments and banned me to send a message to others not to try and change the current system of Adminocracy. Reguyla (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes that's exactly my perception of WMF's position. Thanks for the warning about a possible ban. Hmmm, you do see things very clearly. I hope any reform is radical enough so you can get adminship yourself. I think with the intangible extra status the bit confers, you'd make some very useful contributions to policy discussions etc. Best wishes to you and to Hammersoft. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the thought but I think my chances of getting adminship is pretty tiny. I probably have a better chance of getting abducted by a UFO.:-) Blocks are the kiss of death on Wikipedia and bans even more so. Plus I am not really a fan of the whole adminship system. I still fall under the old camp of adminship is no big deal and thats not a popular sentiment here. Especially from the admins who insist it is a huge deal and want us lowly editors to respect their awthoritay!. I don't really care about the status, never did. I have a day job, I don't need this place or adminship to make me feel important. I just think I would have provided a lot of extra value if I could have participated in some of the backlogs considering I was extremely active on the project. Cheers. Reguyla (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You're probably right unfortunately. I like the Deal concept too, but I think it's best to open about the fact that adminship is now a serious matter. I wonder if moderation becomes more important as communities mature? I was a part time member of Occupy, and near the beginning, the non hierarchical decision making was as described in Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, a beautiful, "strange and valuable" experience where you could "breath the fresh air of equality". But a few months on, working group sessions could be worthless with a reasonably forceful facilitator, as otherwise one or two dominant individuals would just be delivering endless monologues, and no one else would get the chance to have their say. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I often look at the RFA process as being part Spanish inquisition and part commentary from the 2 old guys sitting in the rafters on the muppets. Reguyla (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I also find it rather telling that the vast majority of the folks that say we should keep the RFA process are the admins who managed to make it through. As if to say that if the process doesn't work and they got the tools then somehow something is wrong with their RFA. "Well I got access, whats that say about me?" Nothing, they got lucky, thats it. Most do a great job, some do not but we are stuck with them all just the same. Changing the process will have the same effect, some will be good and some will be bad, the end result should be though that we get more of the positive contributors than negative ones. Reguyla (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


Ok, just adding this here as a starting place. Things get built brick by brick, and to build it the first brick must be laid:

  1. What problems exist with the current RFA process?
    1. Viewed as being too hellish.
    2. Passing (or not) can be based on entirely meaningless metrics.
    3. Some believe the lack of a desysop process means RfA must be stringent to weed out the bad before promotion.
  2. Is there an administrator shortfall?
    1. This compared to User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_by_month shows we are losing admins far faster than we are replacing them. This does not immediately suggest we need more admins, only that we are currently operating with fewer admins than previously.
    2. This can also be seen in the increasing backlogs at many of the admin venues and the semingly increasing nature of the requests for help at ANI
  3. What should be the strategic goals of a replacement RfA system?
    1. More ability to pass gnomish editors.
    2. More ability to pass content producers.
    3. Less antagonism.
    4. Restore the regular editor > admin progression path, which Sue Gardner, WSC and others has said is important for editor retention.
    5. More trust in editors
    6. Clear and concise language discouraging unprepared or unqualified candidates at RfA. It shouldn't be a Gauntlet but there's no need to waste peoples time if someone has only been here for a month.

Just throwing this out there. Feel free to add numbered bullet points to the above. Keep discussion below. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This could turn out to be very useful. Please remove the two goals I've just added if you don't like them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
All good comments. I added a couple, I hope thats ok. I think generally access to the tools should be granted to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while (a couple years probably). They should also have and a fairly large number of edits (like 5000-10000) with experience in multiple areas and namespaces. They should also be a known and trusted member of the community. Basically if they have been around for a while and have done good work for the project and have some experience in multiple areas, the RFA process should be mostly a quick check to see if the person isn't going to go rogue. If they suddently start doing something stupid then someone can remove the tools. No muss or fuss. Take a break and come back in a couple months and try again, depending on the reason they were removed. Its important to remember no matter how easy they make it, not everyone is going to want it. But if we have a fairly large number of experienced people with access to get stuff done we will see less drama, less of the adminship = Aristocracy, less backlogs and more building of an encyclopedia which many have gotten away from over the years. Reguyla (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I notice a lot of the comments here for maintaining the current RFA system are those admins who got promoted under the current system. As though admitting the system is flawed somehow means that they must have been chosen incorrectly. Regardless of how or when they were chosen to be admins, the RFA process does not work and hasn't for some time. Just because a person is on life support doesn't mean they are working! It also seems as though the biggest reason for Jackmcbarns stellar RFA is that the community is trying to make a promotion for November so its not another no support month. Many of the same people supporting have opposed in the past based on the criteria that Jack doesn't meet. He has only been here for 14 months, he has less than 4000 mainspace edits, he has virrtually no content experience and most of what he does is on the ultra conservative technical side. Frankly it looks a lot like someone who left the project or was kicked out, waited a while, and then came back and carefully managed their wiki editing. I'm concerned that they may want adminship too much and will let it go to their head once they get the tools. Reguyla (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Related comment to Hammersoft[edit]

@Hammersoft: I just saw a comment you made about the admin DangerousePanda and wanted to point out that he has been an admin far longer than 2010. He used to be an Arb member with his previous username. I think they were orignially promoted to admin sometime around 2005 or 2006. Reguyla (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Good point. Just going off his RfA 2 under Bwilkins. Point still made though. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
    • No worries, I just wasn't sure if you were aware. Take care. Reguyla (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I thought there was something back there, but couldn't remember. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Correction, DangerousPanda (under any name) was never an arbitrator. He did run once, but unsuccessfully. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Brad, maybe he was a clerk then I should double check. My apologies and thanks for the clarification. Reguyla (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The election you are looking for is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates. —Neotarf (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Neotarf, I really thought it was longer ago than that, but I haven't really been able to edit for a while so I'm a little out of the groove. Maybe someday the project will come before politics again and I can get some editing done....probably not though. Cheers! Reguyla (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins on 22 April 2009 (unsuccessful), Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins 2 (second RFA) on 25 January 2010 (successful), and this Arbcom inquiry into multiple civility issues, resulting in a voluntary vacation to a non-admin account, after Risker twisted the thumbscrews.
I'm tired of the politics as well, but they seem to be necessary and inescapable. —Neotarf (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I agree that its necessary to a certain degree, but many of them go looking for reasons to block, ban, protect, etc. There is no reason to preemptively protect an article or block an IP who has never edited. All that does, is solidify the role of the admins so that a handful of abusive ones can exert control and influence over others. I also agree that will probably never stop 100%, but I find it extremely frustrating that the sites leadership, including the WMF and the Arbcom, not only turn a blind eye to it but actively enable the culture of abuse at every opportunity. While at the same time talking about how people in the site should be more civil, happy contributors content to be under the control of others that neither care about the project nor about the ones doing the actual work. Anyway, take care, I'm going to go cry into my beer for a while. :-)Reguyla (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Another solution looking for a problem[edit]

Thought you might want to be aware of this RfC. I've commented there, but essentially my view is once again someone's come up with a solution looking for a problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, Floquenbeam: I think everyone knows me and Floquenbeam aren't on good terms since my ban. If that wasn't already clear it is now, but I for one agree that its time to break some of the Arbcom tasks out. I see your point about a solution looking for a problem, but to me, there are serious problems with the Arbcom that need solutions. I think there are things the Arbcom does that need to be done by someone, but not necessarily them. I am also quite sure Floq is right too that being on Arbcom does suck. Especially when they don't make good decisions. It opens them up to a barrage of comments from the community and makes editing not fun like it is for the rest of us worthless editors. With that said I'm not sure that splitting up all the tasks into new groups or committees is the right way to go either. We already have groups that could should do some of the work and should have been doing it all along. I have stated before that I think the Arbcom should be shut down, but some of the work will still need to be done and we have other venues already established for much of it. I also think the reason we are seeing a decline in candidates is the same reason we see a decline in other areas of the project. The editing culture and environment of Wikipedia sucks and Arbcom, or its failure to do anything about it, is partially responsible. So some or many do not want to be associated to it.
One of my biggest complaints about Arbcom has always been that everything is done in secret behind the scenes and the community has no idea what, if anything, they are thinking. Some shouldn't see the light of day but we don't even know how many requests for reinstatement the BASC gets. All we know is the Arbcom says its a lot of habitual requests. Ok, who are they? How many? Surely that shouldn't be hard to track. For all we know they are just summarily denying all requests because they are too busy. We really don't know what the workload is and frankly I don't care, they volunteered for it so its up to them to ask the community for help if its needed. If they aren't doing their jobs and don't ask for help, then thats on them, not the community.
Personally I think the tasks currently done by the AUSC should be handed over to the Bureaus and/or Stewards as well as the responsibility for policing the admins. We shouldn't have to go into a month long debate with I's dotted and T's crossed to desysop an abusive admin. We should be able to present a breif statement on the bureaus page and state our case without all the legalistic bullshit that Arbcom currently requires. These folks can be trusted to make the decision and certainly it won't be any worse than the Arbcom has done it with far more visibility. If necessary we could create a mechanism to track the requests automatically, we have some bot writers on this site still right? editors are reported to admins when they screw up and admins should be reported to the Bureaus. If the Bureaus or Stewards screw up, then those could/should be taken to the Arbcom. But there is no need to force a massive legalistic nightmare because an admin is acting like a dick.
We should likewise dissolve the BASC and hand that over to the OTRS folks with expanded flexibility and authority to fix problems and deal with complaints. They already deal with this type of issue, its not that much more work and they have more people with more experience to do it. If they have one that they think needs to go higher, let them kick it up to Arbcom.
So I do agree that Arbcom tries to do too much and that stretches them too thin, so what little they do accomplish is half assed, wrong or self serving. So I agree we need to start realigning some of these tasks to the venues that actually should be doing it. By all means start small and go slow, its been screwed up for a long time so it doesn't need to change overnight. Reguyla (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think we agree in the abstract, but not in the detail. ArbCom accepted cases have been steadily declining for some time now. Decline is the norm now project wide. The Foundation is absolutely clueless about organizational life cycles, so they think this can be fixed (see this blog entry of mine for more). When the project was young, we kept on creating all sorts of administrative groups and committees. We were overrun with them. The bureaucracy kept expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. Now we are in a decline, and the needs of the many are decreasing. What really needs to be handled becomes increasingly more apparent as needs dwindle. A group better suited to handling those needs could be formed, but I do not think we should move ahead without understanding where we are and where we want to be. Without such understanding, we have no measure of success and we set ourselves up for the same failure we're in now. The Foundation and ArbCom have both royally screwed things up. It's time for them to step back and let professionals handle it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I totally agree. The WMF is clueless and still think the problems are software related. I also agree the first thing we need to do is analyze/inventory what the Arbcom tasks are. We then need to look at each task and do an analysis of what is actually needed and determine if that need is being met or of changes are needed. My gut tells me the latter, but without proof its hard to argue since everything is being hidden in the ether. It sounds hard but its not really that complicated. Most of the requirements are pretty cut and dry, its just a matter of objectively deconstructing the process. I also agree that more needs to be handled by the community. There are things that I think we need the WMF and an oversight Arbcom type board for, but neither the Arbcom nor the WMF are doing or willing to do those things so they may as well get out of the way. Or at least not being counterproductive like releasing bad software or contributing to the degrading editing environment. Reguyla (talk)
  • There's a notion that ArbCom is all powerful. In one sense, they are, and this mythos is maintained by everyone. In another sense, they're powerless. Imagine; what if ArbCom had nothing to do? Would they be all powerful anymore? Increasingly this is becoming the case. If there's community backing for given proposals, we do not need ArbCom's permission to implement them, at least in so far as some of their currently tasked responsibilities are concerned. Right now, there's an RfC regarding the existence of RFC/U. It's going very badly for the continued existence of RFC/U (currently 30-3 against keeping it). See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Do_Away_with_RFC.2FU. If we can do away with something so ensconced on the project as that, we can remove ArbCom responsibilities as well. If their well of tasks dries up, they are powerless. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll be honest I don't really see the point of RFC/U anymore either. There are very few RFC's anymore (there used to be a lot) so having a seperate venue doesn't really make much sense anymore. Just do an RFC like submission under the applicable Village pump and keep rolling. At this point in the project and with the activity we have these days having all these extra venues and WikiProjects is really pointless and a waste of resources. Its like RFA and RFB. If we only have one or 2 a month, does it really need to be its own venue? My opinion is it doesand those can be done under the Village pump as well. Reguyla (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem is when a whole bureaucracy has become entrenched, it is almost impossible to remove it. There's a huge amount of structure in place regarding RfA/RfB. About the only way to do it is the way that RFC/U has gone (and I hope ArbCom can go); if no one uses it, and doesn't for a long time, then the chances people will protest it being removed will be small. RFC/U used to be, as you note, quite active. Now, the old denizens have moved on, and the cobwebs are testament to it. With so few to protest, it gets closed. RFC/U almost certainly is facing that fate, and with any luck some other heavily entrenched processes that yield nothing will follow. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


FYI: [2]. CC.

Category:Oklahoma articles without listas parameter[edit]

Category:Oklahoma articles without listas parameter, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note but I couldn't vote on it if I wanted too. I'm still in editing jail for criticizing the corruption and incompetence of some of the admins. Just a couple notes though. If this category is deleted, you should also look at the other related Lisas paramters for WikiProject United States (every state and most of the other supported projects have one as well) and you will need to remove the logic from the WikiProject Template as well if that hasn't already been done. It may also be a good idea to simply remove the listas form the ones that do have it to avoid confusion if its determined that its not needed. Another comment on the mention of WikiProject biography. Not all of these articles fall into WikiProject Biography, so using the argument that they are already sorted by that WikiProject only affects about 30% of the articles. Reguyla (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I just wanted to clarify. Although WPOK is not a WPUS supported project, WPUS uses these listas parameters as well so if this one is done the WPUS ones should be done as well probably. Reguyla (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Medal of Honor
Thank you for quality articles on recipients of the Medal of Honor, for quoting the wisdom "We have known the bitterness of defeat and the exultation of triumph, and from both we have learned there can be no turning back.", applied to an honorable oppose, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (5 February 2010 and 22 January 2011)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 276th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. People were still building an encyclopedia back then. It was a much better place. Now people are more interested in finding reasons to enforce policy, gain power and block people they don't agree with than of building an encyclopedia. If there was more interest in building an encyclopedia the community would have done something about the abusive and corrupt admins here by now. As it is, those few abusive individuals have so much power that even the arbcom has been infiltrated and is too weak to do anything about them. This project has truly become a sad excuse for an encyclopedia. Thanks for the reminder of better times though Reguyla (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
For example, if I wasn't still blocked I could have helped clear up some of the questions at Template talk:WikiProject United States and the WikiProject talk page, I could have done the items on the list above (which is just a short one compared to the real one I am keeping offline), I would have added several more articles and would have tagged a lot of stuff with WikiProject Banners, not to mention cleanup stuff. But because I am blocked to prove a point to the community not to question admins authority, those edits and a lot of others aren't getting done. Because building an encyclopedia is no longer the priority here. Making sure that admins, especially the abusive ones with all the power, are protected is now the priority and I don't expect I will ever be allowed to edit again so they can continue to be abusive and drag the project down. I averaged more than 10, 000 edits a month prior to me ban/block and those who did less than 100 edits a month still tried to argue I wasn't here to build an encyclopedia. Whats even worse, some actually believed them because they were too lazy to look. Anyway, rant over but needless to say this place has become a sad shadow of what it once was and could be if people cared about the project more than about their power. Reguyla (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template talk:USRSB[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template talk:USRSB requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bazj (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ulysses S. Grant[edit]

I'm sorry AustralianRupert but I am not allowed to help review the Ulysses S. Grant article. But if I were allowed to, I might make the following suggestions for starters.

  1. I know this is a hard topic but it seems like the lead is a bit too long and it might be good to trim that down.
  2. The lead shouldn't have refs (such as 1, 2 and 3) because it should be a summary of the article and therefore the information in the article should be referenced.
  3. I recommend converting the portals to a portal bar and placed at the bottom of the article.
  4. Some of the references are duplicative. For example #70 and #75.
  5. Reference 306 is more of a note than a reference.
  6. Same as 307
  7. why combine refs together like in 87, 92 and 164. I think it would be better to separate these.

Good luck with the review and I look forward to the day when this project is about writing articles and building an encyclopedia again and less about certain admins trying to make a point. Reguyla (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I will take a look at the article/review again. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Cmguy777:, Greetings Cmguy777, I just noticed you were still working on this article and wanted to offer a few suggestions. Reguyla (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@Reguyla: Thanks for the suggestions. I suppose the references were combined to prevent reference "clutter". Do you suggest that all of the references be seperate in the article ? I have been going through the Civil War section trying to tighten narration add references and give an accurate historical representation of Ulysses S. Grant and the Civil War. The Vicksburg section needed some work better narration and content. The lede has been signifigantly reduced but can see if more reduction can take place. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the references be seperate in the article". Personally I think if the reference has already been used they should be grouped at the end, otherwise you end up with large numbers of redundant references and it makes it hard to read and review. The reference should be specific though IMO. How specific is more personal preference to the author of the article. I generally would group them if it was within a page or 2, so if pages 5, 6 and 7 were used multiple times, I would just combine them and say 5-7, of course you wouldn't want that to be 50 pages long, but if its between 1-3 pages its easier IMO. If there is a specific section you need more review on let me know and I can take a look but as I mentioned to a couple other folks on this page I am still being punished so I have to commment here. Reguyla (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Desysop procedure discussion[edit]

@Wehwalt:, I wish I could comment there but I am still being punished for defying my abusive ban. But I find it interesting that you say you would not endorse any desysoping procedure that did not include a neutral evaluation as to whether there was a policy breach. I wonder though, why you would want to continue to create a double standard for admins more than what they already have? Admins have already made it so that its nearly impossible to remove the tools from them even in cases of extreme abuse. The Arbcom has repeatedly shown that they have no intention of removing the tools from admins unless those admins do something against other admins (overturning blocks, defying a mandate by the Arbcom, etc.). They don't care what they do to normal editors, just admins. So it makes zero sense to me why this would be needed. If you don't trust the community to demote an abusive admins, then you shouldn't trust them to give an admin the tools either. So if you require a desysoping procedure that includes a neutral evaluation for admins, then that should also be required for long term contributors, or you really intend for the admins to have a double standard, which I find troubling. If the community can be trusted to ban or block a long term editor, then they also have the ability to do it to an admin. Otherwise, there is a double standard in this comunity that very much needs to be dealt with. Reguyla (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Because when we have a howling mob with respect to someone, they are usually not anxious to bestow an adminly crown upon them. Therefore I think the protection needed. I don't think it's unusual.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
If the admins deserve this protection because of howling mobs, then longterm editors should also be extended the same courtesy. Using myself as an example, if an editor like me has been here for 6 or 7 years and has a long history of editing constructively we should not be able to be thrown out of the project by a dozen idiots abusively manipulating policy without a review. If you were to say that anyonen who has contributed for more than a year and has more than X edits should get a review I would completly agree. But to say that admins should get a review just because they are admins who already cannot be desysopped without an act of congress, a presidential signature and the blood of a virgin seems pretty short sighted. I also find it pretty ironic that 90+% of the ones who are opposing any change to the RFA process are the admins who were promoted under it. The bottom like is the RFA process is utterly broken in every possible way and needs to be fixed. That includes the ability for the community to desysop an abusive or corrupt admin without having to go through the Arbcom for a month. Reguyla (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

RFA for Jackmcbarn[edit]

@Mr. Stradivarius: Greetings Mr. Stradivarius, I hope things are going well for you these days. Sorry I cannot comment at the RFA, but since I would be opposing anyway, its probably better off. I just wanted to drop a note that I am a little troubled about a couple things in that RFA. First, every single opposer is being badgered and that to me is a serious problem. Secondly, I also have a problem with the editors previous years of IP editing. As you know I also edited as an IP and I frankly already figured out what IP he used and if you look at it, he was very aggressive in many cases and I can see how he is going to be once he gets the tools. He very much appears the type of person that created a new account planning on being an admin, laid low for a while and then will act themselves once they get the tools. Lastly, this RFA seems like the community is letting it pass just so a third month doesn't go by without an admin promotion. Many of the same people voted oppose twice in the last 5 months on other editors because they didn't have enough content/featured article experience. Yet this user who has almost no content work is being fsat tracked through the RFA process so that we can say the RFA process works. Needless to say, its troubling to me and I wish I could comment there. But since I can't I wanted to let you know as the submitter. Reguyla (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Intothatdarkness: Funny, I just posted the same concern to Mr Strativarius above and If I wasn't still in Wikijail I would also be opposing. Reguyla (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Lukeno94: Greetings Lukeno94, I'm sure it doesn't come as much of a consolation coming from me, but I completely agree with your comments here and would have also opposed if I was able. A couple of candidates just in the last 90 days were denied the tools due to lack of content experience, some of which had far more experience in general on the site. This RFA gave me the impression that this user was passed for the sole reason of not going another month with no promotions. Reguyla (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I've got little doubt about the fact the RfA was forced through to prevent another no-promotion month. I drew a lot of my content-related commentary from myself; although I can't compare the exact numbers right now due to the WMFLabs Tool Server being a heap of shit, in 7000-8000 less edits I have 4000 more edits to mainspace, and I also don't have 50% more edits to user talk space than I do to mainspace. Not sure why it's supposed to be little consolation; 95% of the negative interactions I've had with users in the past are forgotten about now, and it's only a few that I really remember. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
No worries, I thought you voted support on my ban discussion after I criticized some corrupt admins but its no big deal. This site is quickly becoming more of a talk forum about current affairs anyway than an encyclopedia because the most active content ediotors are being run out of the site by admins who don't edit content (case on point above). Instead of admins working to support the content creators they want them to know and stay in their place. Another couple years and WP will be thought of in the same way as MySpace and AOL. Reguyla (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I probably did, but I was out of the scene long enough for the vast majority of similar situations to have gone from my memory banks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah me too and I am too lazy to go back and look it up.:-)Reguyla (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

AWB Question[edit]

@Magioladitis: Greetings Magioladitis, Sorry I have to ask this way, I'm still in Wikijail but I have an AWB question regarding Wikisource. I have noticed that when I pull in a list of articles from Wikisource it takes a very long time to load and a lot of memory so I think there might be something wrong there. I just wanted to let you know. Reguyla (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments about the RFA process[edit]

@Dennis Brown:, Greetings Dennis. I noticed your comments about not changing the RFA process because the WMF won't allow it. I understand where you are coming from but I think we need to stop worrying about what the WMF will allow. If the community decides to change the RFA process and unbundle the tools, or abolish the RFA requirements then let the WMF come back and say they are not going to enforce the communities wishes. Otherwise, the WMF can step up and do something to fix the problem. They cannot have it both ways. If they want to help come up with a better solution, which I have advocated with them directly to do, then great. Otherwise, they should step aside and let the community decide on whats desired for this project. Sorry I cannot comment at the actual discussion since I am still being punished for my insolence but I wanted to tell you how I felt anyway. Reguyla (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

  • No, the WMF will allow changing the system, but it has to be peer review. You can't break apart the tools and just let admin give editors the delete/undelete bit. If you remember, Carrite (Tim) ran for admin, I nom'ed him, and we got a crash course at that time. The WMF doesn't dictate what the RFA system is, only that it is peer review before you get to see deleted material. It isn't about the block button, just deleted stuff. There are legal ramifications, so I kind of understand. And while I'm not exactly a booster for WMF and everything they do, they own the boxen. We don't have a choice but to work with them, and most of the time, it works pretty well. My individual experiences haven't been great, but that is for another day. We are two sides of the same coin. They don't get paychecks if we don't edit for free. No one sees our words if they don't maintain the servers. Some days, it does seem like a shotgun wedding. Dennis - 16:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone is advocating that they just give out the ability to delete/protect or block willy nilly to every editor. Personally I think all three of those are grossly overused and 90% of those that have been used on should be unprotected and unblocked as OBE. Regardless, I don't think breaking them apart is a bad thing nor do I think the WMF will tell us we can't do it. I also agree that there needs to be a process. But RFA doesn't have to be it and the RFA process doesn't really work anyway. Its not the ability to protect, delete and block that the WMF has a problem with. The WMF couldn't care less about those. What they do not want is everyone having access to see deleted material. That is the one that is a problem and could easily be restricted as its own permission based on a well justified need. But there are already 1500+ people, many of which are largely inactive, that have access to see deleted material now so that argument is really unjustified. If someone has been here for 3+ years and has actively built content and participated, saying they can't be trusted is just an insulting their efforts. Especially when there are so many abusive admins allowed to keep the access regardless of how many policies they violate. Plus, just because you can delete doesn't mean you need to undelete or see it once its been deleted. Protect and Unprotect probably need to go together, but there could even be some with the ability to only semi protect things. I also think the ability to block should be limited to 1 week except if done by a higher user like Checkuser or Bureau's but thats just me. In the end though, breaking the tools apart is better for the project because it will increase the number of experienced people who can do the things that need to be done to keep the project running. Its also obvious that Admins (not referring to you BTW) will be allowed to continue to be held to a lower standard and exempted from most policies, especially involving harassment of editors, but I don't think we are going to change that until a large amount of the community advocates for it and we aren't there yet. Reguyla (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I think you are muddying one point. They don't care if an editor can see deleted material, they care that the editor went through a process, thereby giving them plausible deniability when it comes to liability. That is the nut of it. They don't want to get sued. I suggested breaking off the block bit and letting editors go through RFA to get all the tools except block. Many of the more content minded editors would like that. As for breaking up delete and the undelete function. I don't know. Really, if I can trust you do delete, I can trust you to do most anything else you want to do, but I've not considered the idea you are presenting before, so any opinion from me would be uninformed. As for blocks, thats more impractical than you might realize, but I understand. It's hard to fathom how many pure vandals and such we indef block all the time. We have some serious inconsistencies and issues with blocking, I agree, but I'm not convinced your solution is the best of all options. Someone has a policy proposal Wikipedia:Pending changes blocks that I don't feel would ever have a chance of passing, but I thought you might find it an interesting read. Although completely different than your idea, it has some elements that could be incorporated. So at least people are thinking about it, and throwing up ideas, generating newer ideas and such. Dennis - 16:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Oh yeah I completely agree about the point of liability but it really is about the ability to see deleted content more than anything else. Which I find pretty stupid because if you do a full database dunp it comes with the deleted content. It just takes a little effort to get to it. As for the trust points though, there are a lot of admins and editors I trust and a lot of admins and editors I don't trust. Using Eric Corbett as an example, I think he can be a jerk but he is trustworthy and I wouldn't worry for a second about him having access to the tools. Using myself as another example I have more experience in the project than most admins and I have more contributions in more areas than 90% of them, so the arguments by some that I am going to go deleting content and blocking people is just absurd and even if I did, they could easily be restored. But he and I have pissed off so many admins, that its never going to happen, because the Wikipedia culture doesn't trust its editors. There are a lot of others just in the last couple months too (Gamerpro, Solarra, Cyberpower, Koavf, etc.) that are perfectly trustworthy but don't and won't get the tools either. Yet there are a long list of admins who I would love to call out by name but won't, who do have access and will for life, that I wouldn't trust to park my car. Yet the community is stuck with them and the admins and Arbs will allow them to get away with whatever they want to do because the community at some point in the past said they are "trusted" and that is for life. So to me its not a trust issue, its way more than that. Its a culture and political issue, so its not the people who can do the job best that get elected., its the ones who can sell it to the mob. The recently passed RFA is an example of that, a lot of better editors have failed RFA who didn't have the sketchy past and who had far more experience in the project, but now we can say that one got passed in November so the RFA process still works. Thanks for the link too, I'll check that out. Reguyla (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You didn't really expect that to go anywhere did you[edit]

@NE Ent: Greetings, I hope you didn't actually expect anything to come out of the Arbcom case with DangerousPanda because just as the RFC was closed, the Arbcom folks and his fellow admins will find a reason to scuttle the Arbcom case as well. Now I have no particular problem with DP and I think much more highly of him that the vast majority of his peers, but given that you are a non admin, he is and the actions did not affect another admin, there was zero chance of success. Admins do not desysop or scold other admins, except stupendously rarely, for actions against regular editors. Its an unwritten rule. If you want an arbcom case to stick you should submit an RFA and if you pass and are let into the club, then you will have sufficient credibility. I know you were able to get me banned for a snide comment but this is an admin and the double standard applies here. Cheers and Happy editing. Reguyla (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipolitics and RFA[edit]

Hi Kumioko. I can see you getting more and more involved in discussions about RFA and admin behaviour on this page. Can I suggest it is probably best if you avoid them. The last thing I want to see is you ending up in an angry argument on this talk page - that would probably end up with your block being re-extended. The more you comment on Wikipolitics the more likely that is to happen. The Land (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@The Land: I appreciate the note The Land and I realize it seems like I am only using my talk page for Wikipolitics, but that would be the minority of edits if I wasn't blocked. Since as you know I am being punished (because that's all this block is, is a punishment, its certainly not preventing harm because I haven't harmed anything other than the feelings of some abusive admins) I cannot do more. As such, the only thing I can do is comment. I can't even build articles in my userspace or archive this talk page. Leaving notes of work that needs to be done or vandalism that needs to be reverted will result in a block to anyone who does it, because my punishment is more important than building an encyclopedia.
Unfortunately building an encyclopedia isn't the priority for many of the participants in this project anymore and I doubt anything will stop me from getting blocked by them again because they aren't here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to feel important and to gain what they think is power. They found an extremely weak excuse to ban me (as a long term high output editor I might add) last February so they could silence a critic, its unlikely they will let me come back. No one cared about the abusiveness of my block until I refused to drop the issue, because I will not back down to bullies. A handful of abusive admins are allowed to do whatever they want and I criticized them so they kicked me out. But don't be fooled into thinking that I am not here to contribute to an encyclopedia. I have 500, 000 edits, have hundreds of articles created, over a dozen featured articles etc., etc., etc. and none of it matters because I am not an admin and cannot be "trusted". Me getting kicked out was and will be again, about politics and quieting a critic, nothing more. Because no matter how abusive an admin is to editors they are above reproach. So if you and others feel that the project doesn't need editors, particularly high output ones so that a tiny minority of abusive admins who don't even contribute as editors can be protected, feel free to block me. Otherwise, if you are here to build an encyclopedia rather than prevent editors from doing that and protecting an abusive environment, unblock me so we can get back to work. Personally I think I know which of those is more likely, because of course any admin on this site is free to block any editor they wish without contestation or argument, but try and unblock one, why that's grounds for a desysopping. Anyway, if you managed to read all that, you'll see my trust in the community and especially the admin culture is pretty much as low as it can get, but I do hold out hope that a few like you, Dennis, Murphy and Worm that turned will eventually get tired of your abusive peers and do something to stop them from abusing the editors like me instead of enforcing bad policy by supporting and enabling the abusive admins against us. For what its worth though, watch my talk page when I do get unblocked and your liable to see a lot of welcome back comments from the real editors on this site that are here to build an encyclopedia rather than the ones who claim they are in charge. Because there are a lot more that want me here than want me out of the project. Most of the ones that want me out, want me out because they are abusive and don't care about the project and I called them out on it. Cheers and happy editing. Reguyla (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we need to differentiate between a block an ban, which are different, as you know. If it was only a block, it would 100 times easier for any single admin to take the initiative. Because it is a community ban, it requires community consent. Regardless of the circumstances, if any admin unblocks you, they will get blocked, desysopped and you will be instablocked. My guess is the reblock will take less than 5 minutes. Procedure doesn't allow it, we MUST go to the community, and frankly, you've kind of pissed them off. Not as much before the ban as much as after, if we are to be honest. If not for that, we could have been there by now with at least a reasonable attempt. I'm not saying it's fair, or best, or building, or whatever. I'm saying that is the practical reality. While I understand standing up to principles, there are many ways to do that, and compromise doesn't require sacrificing them. And while you may disagree with me at times, I hope you understand I respect you enough to tell you the truth, as I understand it. Dennis - 01:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for stopping by Dennis, nice to see you again. I hope things have been going better for you. Last time we talked you had some stuff going on so I hope everything is better now. In regards to the comment above though, as I interpret the ban discussion, the ban was downgraded to a 6 month block until February at which time it would be automatically lifted. Because the discussion was already had and the punishment stipulated, there is no need to have another one in February. Which makes some sense because if the ban was still in effect I would not be able to edit my talk page at all. And although I am still not happy with the punishment, I can live with it for my actions after that abusive ban I was given. It unfortunate that I had to act the way I did but I refuse to be bullied off the site by those who aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Plus there would never have been a discussion had I just capitulated and walked away and the bullies would have won and I would be used as a symbol to the community of what happens when you criticize admins. Even more than I am already that is. But I do agree that because I was an outspoken criticism of both the Arbcom and abusive admins, any admin who unblocks me before February would likely suffer a grim fate regardless of the harm my block is doing to the project. As I mentioned above, I do not believe that the majority of the admins these days give a shit about building an encyclopedia outside what it can do for the ego or resume. Hell, if I were an admin I would still be editing, but since I am just an editor I have no rights on this site and we both know that. If I wanted I could just create a new account and edit for a while and I would be an admin in a years time Like Jack Mcbride or whatever his name is that just got the tools. Anyway, I don't expect that I am going to be unblocked anyway nor did I ever really think that. Because the abusive admins will get their way because frankly you and your less aggressive peers will let them do whatever they want, because they are admins too, but such is the nature of Wikipedia these days. Anyway take care. Reguyla (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
You might be surprised. Many admin ONLY care about building articles, so they don't get involved in ANY politics. They use the tools for pure maintenance. Other like me, are (if we are honest) middle of the road authors, but good at gnoming and working with others, doing the dirt work (like I do with Eric), and instead their talents are dealing with behavioral issues. And perhaps some aren't that great at much, due to being burned out or other reasons. We are all human, after all. But I've found a great many good admin, they just fly under the radar. That doesn't overshadow the mistakes of some, but as a ratio, it might not be as one sided as you think. Honestly, most of the admin I've chatted up (and I've called, skyped, emailed a great many) are pretty normal guys that want to build an encyclopedia. The reasonable guys really do outnumber the more "blunt" ones. They just don't stand out, so you don't notice them as quickly. Dennis - 03:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
As you know Dennis I have stated from day one that my belief was that it was only a minority of admins who are abusive. The problem is, its some of the most active on the project. I even consider one of the Arbs, WormThatTurned, to be a good admin (the rest not so much). The bigger problem is that the community has been conditioned to fear the admins and other admins like yourself, whom I consider to be a good admin, are too passive in dealing with your problematic peers. They know that they can get away with whatever they want because you and the Arbcom have shown it to them and the community has been shown that they don't matter when it comes to admins. The community cannot be trusted to remove the tools from one (but they are allowed to give them the tools), the community cannot defend themselves from the bullies who are here amongst the admin ranks your good faith or not. You can continue to choose to ignore the problem if you wish, but they want you too and in fact they will reprise against you and anyone else (like me) who challenges their authority. But make no mistake, they are not here to build an encyclopedia and if the community and the Arbcom show the their actions won't be tolerated, the majority will stop. But the Arbcom is weak and corrupt so they won't do anything unless you and your non corrupted peers act. As an editor I tried to do something and I was made into the bad guy because the community has been conditioned that no matter how abusive it was done, if a member is banned, they are out of the community. So they were able to discredit me and continue their patterns of abuse. Don't be fooled into thinking I am not here to build an encyclopedia. I am simply not going to be bullied by others who don't care about the project. Reguyla (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
*Cough*. Am rather tempted to hand in my admin bit also, but I remember being active on Oversight, and can't do that without the admin bit. WormTT(talk) 12:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I certainly understand but I'm sorry to hear that because like I said above your the only one on the committee I have any respect for anymore. Your the only one left that doesn't have the admins are above reproach mentality. I also hope your right that change is coming with regard to Arbcom (my hope is a clean house) but I'm not holding out hope. No offense. Reguyla (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth: I've been deeply critical of ArbCom and haven't received a block from it. I am quite positive that I pissed off quite a few of them. Frankly, I don't care. I wasn't criticizing them to anger them but to bring about real change. A few things have changed, but there is whole swath of problems that remain. I have also been highly critical of admins when I felt the need to be so. I don't know if this will shed any light, but the way in which I dole out such criticism may have had a hand in my not being blocked. For one, I scrupulously follow WP:NPA's statement "Comment on [actions], not on the contributor". If they do something I find abusive, I comment on what they did, not on them personally. For two, I am very careful to never call out individuals unless there is specific conduct by that individual (in which case I refer to one). There are tripwires all over this project. New users are frequently blasted to pieces when they unknowingly come across them, and we decry such behavior (though it doesn't change). But, the tripwires also apply to experience contributors who are not among the "more equal". Such people are quite happy to use the tripwires to administer punishments to force a contributor into submission or departure from the project. Stay well clear of the tripwires and you should be fine. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Same here, I couldn't care less if I hurt their feelings because they certainly don't care about mine nor any other editor on this site that hinders their powergrab. The problem with NPA is that its interpretive. If you mention an editor by name, thats ok, but mention an admin by name and how they abused their tools and thats a personal attack and grounds for a block. I think we have both seen that tactic many times. Tripwires are an interesting metaphor since one of the things I learned to do in the military was clear those. Large armored bulldozers (we called them D7's) work well for that BTW! Like I said above though, I doubt I will be allowed back and even then there will be some looking for any reason no matter how weak, to justify banning or blocking me again. Because this project has become less about building an encyclopedia as it is about putting editors in their place and stroking the ego's of a few admins who are allowed to do whatever they want. My hope is that someday the community and the other admins like TParis, WTT and Dennis above in adition to others will start to tire of the abusive ones and take a more active role in policing their own to change the perception of admins. Because until other admins take action and stop ignoring their peers, it is only going to get worse. Complacency is just enabling their behavior and making them bolder. Anyway, they have succeeded in discrediting me on this site and somehow managed to actually convince some that I am not here to build an encyclopedia regardless of the fact that I have more edits, articles created and featured content than 99% of the people on this site. So if they can justify that for me, then anyone could be the next target of their abuse.Reguyla (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Recently (last month in fact), I was accused of lying by a bureaucrat. I called him out on it, and he ignored my response, much less apologized for it. If I were to accuse a bureaucrat of lying? There'd be a fair chance of me being blocked for grossly violating WP:NPA. This is the type of tripwire of which I speak. I have seen several editors who have been victimized by long term blocks...not by the blocks but by the reaction of editors following the end of that block. People assume that if you've been blocked for an extended period there must be something seriously wrong with you. Regardless of how right or wrong it is, you will forever have a cloud over you. The tripwires are going to be extremely sensitive. Personally, I wouldn't want the stress. I'm not here to raise my blood pressure. Having an account with history, with people being able to remember you, is nothing. A quick read appears to show that you are not under any community sanctions once this block expires. I'd recommend dropping this account once the block expires and quietly starting afresh. Wikipedia:Clean start permits this. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I actually thought of starting a new account, but I shouldn't have to because I was bullied out of the site to make an example. Maybe next time if the abuse continues once my block expires, but for the moment I am going to give the community a chance to get a good editor back and I am going to assume good faith. Because just as they are expecting me to build their trust back, they also need to re-earn mine. Right now I cannot trust the community any more than they perceive me to be untrustworthy. Trust is a 2 way street and just as I lost their trust and respect, they also lost mine and both sides need to earn that back. Its not just about me taking a knee and kissing the admin ring, its also about the community deciding editors shouldn't have to belittle themselves to participate in this project. Reguyla (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It's good to hear your intentions are firmly on getting back to editing articles. I won't labour my point further - no doubt you know that if you get into some kind of angry row here that would be bad news for your eventual return to editing.
For what it's worth I think we have few people in our community (and hardly any admins) who behave in a deliberately abusive way, but I do think we could do with a bit more tolerance and patience all round. The problem is that tolerance and patience come at a cost, particularly when people set out to stretch them. The Land (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@The Land: Well don't believe what you hear that "I am getting back to editing articles", I was editing right before I was banned but my extremely high edit count and large number of featured content didn't mean much because I also spent a lot of time doing admin tasks that the admins didn't want or didn't know how to do like template work. So not being an admin and doing admin stuff, while the admins get the credit for making the actual change, was used against me. Part of me also wished I felt as you do about the community and the admins. I used to think that way but I have seen too much to believe that anymore. Certainly your right than most admins and members of the community do just fine and aren't abusive, the problem is some of the most active are abusive and no one does anything. Until more folks come to realize that it shouldn't take an Arbcom decision to desysop an abusive admin and that the community should be able to be trusted with removing the tools if they can be trusted to grant them, thing won't change. Anyway, take care. Reguyla (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Offwiki Reguyla?[edit]

Is this the same Reguyla/Kumioko who was such a great contributor on Offwiki? A lot of people say I'm sorry about this and I'm sorry about that without feeling any true sorrow. I can genuinely say that I'm sorry to hear about your Wikipedia ban. I'm still very interested in what you have to say, and maybe I can help you say it with Offwiki 2.0. In any case, I'd like to tell you more about the reboot of Offwiki and get your advice for how we can keep it engaging and moving forward towards our common goals. I'd also like to know what you've been up to since we last spoke. Drop me a note on my talk page or mail me at Best. -wʃʃʍ- 06:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that was me. I'll drop you a note later. I've been ok, but still riding out my punishment for criticizing corrupt admins on the project. So much for block not being punitive on Reguyla (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A perfect example of the problem with this site[edit]

This post at ANI is a perfect example of the problem on this site. A user complains of being bullied and not one user takes the comment seriously. No one asks for clarification, no one asks who they are referring too nor do they seem to care. They tell the user to walk away from the site if they aren't happy. Just go away!. That is what I see has become of this site. There was a time when at least someone would have looked into the validity of the complaint, but now, its go away. Reguyla (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here is what I see with this user's complaint.

  • The users been here since 2008.
  • Was blocked once in 2010
  • Seems to be fairly active
  • Is only an editor, not an admin
  • Active in DYK's
  • is complaining about User:Ryulong, an editor with a very long history of abuse and an extensive block log
  • This discussion went no where because people, including admins, are making excuses for Ryulong and treating RTG like a criminal. Anyone who bothers to look at the edits in question will clearly see that Ryulong violated policy, so why shouldn't we care about that.
  • A few admins again coming to Ryulong's rescue, and accuse RTG of hounding when anyone who looks can clearly see its Ryulong and company hounding them. All he tried to do is post an ANI complaint about violations of policy, yet he is the criminal.
  • and it goes on, but you need to do some due diligence yuorselves, because I am blocked and can't comment anyway.

This is the sad state of things on this project. When an editor is chastised on ANI for requesting admins review policy violating behavior from an editor and admins with a habitual record of violating policy on this site. And then told to go away! Sad folks, truly sad. Reguyla (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • MrX is right; "Pursuing justice on Wikipedia will only end in tears" It is exceptionally rare that justice is done on this project. Equally rare is anyone apologizing for their misbehavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of WP:AN/I, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Lol, yeah thats about what its like too. Reguyla (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


@Carrite: Greetings Carrite. I just wanted to say hi and tell you I agree with you and I find it funny that some people are blaming Wikipediocracy for Doxxing children (which I do not believe is true at all BTW) when it was someone in Wikipedia that doxxed me to my employer and tried to get me fired because I refused to stop editing. I also find it funny that Wikipedia and commons are filled with pornography or related images with no filter whatsoever, etc. etc., we all know the stories. So arguments by some on this site stating that Wikipediocracy is evil just strike me as vindictive and foolish. Especially if they don't have any proof other than baseless accusations. Reguyla (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment at RFA[edit]

@Kudpung: Regarding your comments here, I also think it would be a nice start if someone started to reign on badgering opposes. Surely I am not the only one that thinks that there is no point in opposing an RFA these days if every opposer is going to be hounded and threatened into changing their vote to support. That is not the "kinder" RFA process that you refer too, that is a manipulation of the process. If you are not going to force Support votes to put definitive reason why they are supporting then there is no need to require it of opposes either. If someone can Support "because they look like a good candidate" an opposer should be able to Oppose on the grounds they "appear to be a bad candidate" without being threatened and hounded by the supporters. That sort of conduct, and allowing it as you and others have done, does not reflect a group "who know how to behave and vote sensibly". It reflects a group that wants things there way! The popular way and shows users if they don't agree with the popular vote then stay away or go away. The RFA process worked for you so I don't expect you to want to change it after the last failure, but justifying that the current process is better because one or 2 people are selected every couple months isn't the answer, its an excuse. Reguyla (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: I completely agree that house cleaning is needed among the legacy admin crowd. There are a number of them who have been a net negative to the project for years and are allowed immunity from policy because they are admins. That is utter bullshit and has always been a bone of contention with me as you know. The only way to change the project is to start to get rid of these bad apples so that they will quite turning the rest of the batch bad as well. And that should not require wasting time with the Arbcom, they don't want to be the admin police so the community should take that responsibility away from them. Reguyla (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Your idea on the Village pump about removing permissions from inactive reviewers[edit]

@Lixxx235, Mdann52: Sorry I cannot support in person but I am still in Wikijail for criticizing admins. I wanted to let you know I think your idea is a great one and I agree. In fact I would take it one step further and remove any advanced privileges (Rollbacker, Filemover, etc.) if the person is inactive. Just like Admins they can just re-request if they come back IMO. Reguyla (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom history[edit]

@28bytes, Newyorkbrad: I believe you fellas might be looking for this. It needs some updating (its missing a couple folks like 28bytes). Cheers.Reguyla (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

28bytes was elected last year, but (to my regret) he resigned before his term would have started on January 1, so he was never actually an arbitrator, which is why he's not listed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh ok thanks for the clarification, I had forgotten he resigned before it took effect. Reguyla (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I seem to remember another case of someone elected to Arbcom who never took their seat, but whose name was on the chart. I remember being surprised at the time that 28bytes' name was not added. —Neotarf (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The only arb/arb clerk I know of that wasn't an admin when they were elected was Bahamut, I don't think anyone else since I have been around (2007ish) wasn't already an admin. Although, the way I interpret the WMF's comments in the past, they don't care what the process is of selecting someone to the Arbcom/RFA as long as we havea process and aren't just handing out rights willy nilly. The Arbcom election process is in many ways better than RFA (although much more effort) and usually has a pretty high turnout (well over 100 votes per candidate is typical). So IMO oppose votes on the grounds that the person isn't an admin should be ignored unless they can justify some better reasoning. I see several I would vote for on the list and several I would oppose (including pretty much any current Arb) but in the end, my vote doesn't matter because the Arbcom is likely to not get enough candidates to pass to fill all the billets being vacated. So they are going to either need to extend some current ones, reduce the number of required ones or lower the pass threshhold. With the current list almost everyone would need to pass to fill the billets and I find that unlikely. The mere fact that so few people want to run for the billet should be evidence in itself about the dwindling reputation of the Arbcom and its place in this community. Reguyla (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, the ping didn't work... I just stopped by here on a whim. (Then again, maybe it did work... telepathic pings? Must be another beta product.) Anyway, I'm listed in some places, but not others... it doesn't particularly matter to me either way. I'll let the historians fight it out. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah sometimes the ping is silent, I have seen that several times myself as well and I'm sure someone would complain about telepahtic pings...interfering with the voices.:-) I agree about the historians and it makes sense what Brad said above, like I said up there I hadn't really noticed that you didn't actually serve on the Arbcom (I guess you get to retain your soul a little longer, lol). Reguyla (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It could be the Internet version of electronic voice phenomenon. Jehochman Talk 15:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Tucson botanical garden article[edit]

hello! I have just been working on the Tucson botanical garden article and have found that it requires more references than what I have just inserted. I tagged it with the template that requires additional references. I'm letting you know about this because you have shown an interest in this article in the past.

  Bfpage |leave a message  13:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Bfpage:, Thanks, but I am blocked until February so I can't edit. I would note however that copy pasting information from here to the article isn't a good idea and will likely get reverted. Thats considered a copyright violation. The information should also come from a secondary source like a newspaper or magazine rather than the source website. Its ok to link to that as an external link, but its generally not good practice to use that as a primary source for the article. Good luck and happy editing. Reguyla (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration elections deadline[edit]

@Beeblebrox, Dennis Brown, Fluffernutter, Thryduulf, TParis, John Carter, JoeSperrazza: Not trying to be a jerk here and not that my opinion matters whatsoever, but they shouldn't have waited until the last hour to submit their candidacies if they wanted to be on Arbcom. If JoeSperrazza and Kudpung really wanted to be on Arbcom, they had more than enough time to submit. They should not be exempted from the criteria that has been established for years just because there are so few candidates this year. They should try again next year and should submit earlier if they want the job rather than waiting until the last possible second to avoid scrutiny. Reguyla (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't being late make them even more qualified for the job of Arbcom than all of the other candidates? I mean, when was the last time Arbcom did anything on time?--v/r - TP 20:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a lot of the candidates who did wind up filing waited till the last minute anyway. I doubt very many of the candidates who did file really want to be on ArbCom, more that it is an onerous duty they are willing to take on themselves if they more or less perceive that they should. Like I said, I could give Kudpung the benefit of the doubt, as he finished his statement before the deadline. Maybe his connection glitched or something like that in delaying adding the material to the appropriate page. I do agree that Joe's candidacy is a bit more problematic. And as for their being late, well, yeah, maybe it is a good idea to start adopting ArbCom traditions early. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@TParis, Good point, I jokes with someone else about wether the cases they just accepted would finish before the end of some of the Arbs terms. Its gonna be cutting it pretty close. Reguyla (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@John Carter, thats a typical stunt pulled by experienced people who are familiar with Arbcom. It happens every year. They wait until the last day or even the last couple hours to reduce the amount of scrutiny that their candidacy will draw. That way, even if someone criticizes the candidate, its not there long enough to draw much attention before its closed and voting begins. What they need to do is add a couple day discussion period after the candidate submission date passes to allow for discussion. I also think there are only a couple that probably stand a chance of getting elected and its very likley we won't have enough that get enough votes to fill the vacating seats. Reguyla (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we are operating on two different conceptions. Having asked several people myself over the years to run, I have never gotten the impression that there are that many people who really want to be on ArbCom. I've always gotten the impression that the reason so many wait so long is because they hope that there are enough of what they consider good candidates who file before they think to, and only when they think that the existing lowest-vote-getters of the existing block of candidates might not do a very good job to they really "bite the bullet" and run themselves. One example that comes to mind is DGG, who honestly could have won any number of elections already had he at that point really wanted to be on ArbCom. And at least one of the current candidates added his self-nomination with an edit summary describing "biting the bullet". John Carter (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Reguyla: "What they need to do is add a couple day discussion period after the candidate submission date passes to allow for discussion." There are five days (and 2 minutes) between the close of nominations and the start of voting for exactly that purpose. Personally I would allow statements completed before the 23:59 deadline (Kudpung's was saved at 23:53) provided they are added to the page within the next hour. I would definitely not accept statements saved later than 00:59, with any started before 23:59 and saved between then and 00:59 at the discretion of the election coordinators. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Certainly questions will be posed in that period as well, but for seasoned, experienced people to wait until the last hour or day of a log open period to "decide" if they want to be an Arb tells me they really don't want the job. Reguyla (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I can see someone waiting until the last hour because they just weren't sure. It is a daunting task. I don't want the job, I can see why others hesitate. There are enough plausible reasons why someone could be 3 minutes late that I would prefer we not be dogmatic about it. Filing 6 hours later, no, but a few minutes shouldn't matter. Dennis - 20:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • And I remember being asked to run myself in the past. Although I didn't actually say "hell no" in response, which is what I've always thought about the idea of me actually being on ArbCom, that was what I was thinking. And I've gotten the impression many of those who I've asked might have shared the same opinion, and in some cases actually said it almost as bluntly as I was at least thinking. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with both of you that that being on the Arbcom is not a pleasant experience, largely because of how they act towards the community as comapred to their fellow admins (and I don't expect you to agree or understand my sentiments there). I sure don't want to do it but then I no longer believe having the Arbcom is any better than not having it. I also see your point about a few minutes given that Wikipedia is a multinational site and timezones may vary (I belive the WP servers are set for Grenwich time in England and I am on the East coast of the US) but I still contend that they had more than enough time to throw their hat in the ring. In the end it doesn't really matter that much to me since it I can't even vote on the candidates or even ask a question of them and I can tell you already most of who will get elected (Phil, DGG, the incumbents and Guerillero). There are a couple of wildcards in there and a couple possibles, but these will likely be the selectees this year IMO. Anyway, I need to go load a couple dozen articles I created to another wiki since I cannot load them here so I'll talk to you guys later. Reguyla (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Please don't ping me or otherwise contact me in any way, now, after you are unblocked, or ever again. I'll be sure and extend the same courtesy to you. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Greetings Beeblebrox and thanks for stopping by to let me know how you feel. I am attempting to let the past be the past and move on for the sake of Wikipedia. I care about the success of the project and I am here to build an encyclopedia so if you are not willing to help in that, then I will do my very best to avoid interacting with you. As this is a small project and given that we are both very active in similar areas, it is likely that we will occasionally cross paths though, so I would encourage you to act like an adult and be mature about me being a member of this project regardless of your personal feelings for me. I don't know or care what your agenda is here, but you are an admin, a former Arb and have a lot of experience in this project and in those rolls you have a responsibility to perform those functions and I hope that your personal feelings towards me does not interfere with that. Reguyla (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

20 November 2014[edit]

Your talk page use - an official warning: I've sympathised a lot with you in the past, especially since I once met you personally a couple of years ago. However, enough is enough, and if you continue to use this talk page as your personal blog, which BTW basically does nothing but criticise Wikipedia, its processes, and its users, I will withdraw your access to it and I won't bother asking at ANI for a consensus to do so. Being blocked does not mean 'business as usual'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Kudpung, I hope things are going well for you these days an this isn't directed at you, per sey, but by the sentiment left. I honestly wish I could do more than just comment here but as you said, but I cannot because I am sitting out my punishment for not giving in to a ban that should never have been allowed and was an obvious manipulation of policy. So even though blocks are not supposed to be punitive, I am living with it, but I would much rather be editing the long list of articles I have in the discussion above or the one I am keeping offline. With that said, if you feel that this project no longer needs editors then feel free to block me. I don't nor did I ever really think I was going to be allowed back anyway because I am a threat to some of the folks on here who are not interested in building an encyclopedia and have their own agendas. BTW, if it was business as usual, I would be doing hundreds or thousands of edits a month. That is business as usual for me, not that Wikipedia has a need for that these days since content editors are of little value here these days. I do find it rather ironic and funny that any admin is allowed to block me or any editor at will "broadly construed" for any duration they wish but if an admin dares to unblock a blocked editor, they can expect to be admonished by Arbcom (because its unlikely they would lose the tools). Something in allowing an admin to block but not unblock to me, seems rather one sided and shows a blatant lack of respect for the editing community. Also, if you are interested in blocking people for "blogs" maybe you should start with this blog eventhough we both know that admins are allowed extreme flexibility and latitude when it comes to Wikipedia policy. Anyway, whenever the project becomes more important than making a point that an editor like myself is nothing when it comes to the admins power to block, let me know because I have a long list of edits that need to be done and articles that need to be created. Cheers and happy editing. Reguyla (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
And BTW, I don't think its particularly appropriate for you to come here and threaten to block me only a couple of hours after I criticized your last minute submission as an Arbcom candidate. Not that anyone is going to care since its directed at me and I am just an editor but its not really my fault you waited until the last ten minutes to submit the thing. That is a blatant retaliatory move and I thought better of you than to think you would do that. Reguyla (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)