User talk:RL0919

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
- If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
- Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Ye Olde Talk Scrolls

2005-2006 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011

Trial RfC

First I want to thank you for a conscientious and difficult close on the articles RfC. There is a draft in userspace of an RfC to determine the trial format/length/etc. I plan to move it into the project space over the next week but before I do so I would love to hear your comments on the idea, the options as they exist now and the format (or anything else you can think of). Thanks. Protonk (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slammiversary IX

It's a tough job, to mop up. Actually, you might've just done something remarkable, 'coz if that AfD had failed I'd...well, IDK if I would have quit, but it'd be touch-and-go [1].

Redirect does seem reasonable, and I agree that the original closer made a logical decision, too.

I merely ask that, please, keep an eye on it; experience tells me, this isn't quite the end of the matter; here are some links for you;

Chzz ► 00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern and have the redirect on my watchlist to watch for any inappropriate restoration of the text. --RL0919 (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Chzz ► 01:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty to protect the redirect until 13 June 00:00 (UTC), since there is little point changing the article into a redirect unless we're sure no one can restore the article until the actual event. Der yck C. 20:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, Slammiversary IX was recreated, with just one reference - which is to TNA itself.

You might also be interested in the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment (2nd nomination).

Personally, I've kinda given up. Chzz ► 19:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you offer your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment (2nd nomination) - please see User_talk:Chzz#WWE_Capitol Punishment. Thanks, Chzz ► 12:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

Hello!

Regarding your comment here, I felt I should follow up and tell you that I've blocked Phdoc0 for socking. While I agree that one edit isn't enough for a vandalism block, the blatantly-obvious socking is blockable. Hope this is OK! Cheers, m.o.p 06:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Del Rev

What do I do now? Since you are the one who closed the discussion, you tell me. Do leave a talkback. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a bit to realize which DRV you mean, since I closed a few yesterday and it appears that you may have had an account name change recently. But I believe I figured out that you mean one about BLP signatures here. I can't say that I have any super-strong advice to give, but here are some thoughts:

For the one that was for a person already deceased, I think recreation would be fine, and I just said so at the new DRV you opened for it. You might want to contact Fastily and see if he would just restore it for you on the grounds that it should have been removed from the original nomination along with Elvis, etc.
For the ones that are still living, my best suggestion would be to see what you can do to meet the criteria discussed at Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons. I realize that it is not an official guideline, but if you address the concerns it raises, I expect you would get a lot more support for restoring/keeping these files. In particular, if any of these signatures have appeared in reliable secondary sources (leaving aside the website you got them from, which might or might not be considered a reliable source), then evidence of that should go a long way.

That's the best I can tell you for now. --RL0919 (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Entertainmentnow

Errr, isn't a 12 hour block too little, given that this user has recreated the page, has removed speedy templates 7 times and may have a connection with http://www.entertainmentnow.com.au? — Abhishek ^Talk 17:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only goal was to stop the bot-reported removal of the speedy deletion template, and 12 hours should be ample to accomplish that since most A7 speedies are processed in less time than that. If the account is promotional for the website, then that's another matter entirely, but there was no mention of that in the bot report (obviously) or on the user's talk page. I'll take a look at the site and if there appears to be a connection, I'll adjust the block accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. I actually repoted the user at WP:UAA. But I guess you must have seen his report at WP:AIV and blocked him 12 hours. — Abhishek ^Talk 17:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there isn't a connection between the username and the site you linked. The site covers Australian entertainers, but this account's contributions have been exclusively related to an entertainer in Florida. Their accidentally-revealed IP also geolocates to Florida. That person's site and company don't use the name Entertainment Now. So while I wouldn't be surprised to discover this is a WP:COI account (probably the fellow promoting himself), a username block is not justified. That said, if the account resumes the same behavior after the current block ends, a longer block would be appropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PEREN

Notice you removed the "demote inactive admins" bit from Perennial Proposals. When was this implemented? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very recently. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins was closed as successful on July 2, and implementation began the next day. Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Removal of Sysop right for inactive Admins has ongoing discussion of the implementation details. --RL0919 (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Guess I should pay attention to the Pump again. Thanks! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox fictional battle

Would you be so kind as to un-close and un-delete the infobox to allow for additional discussion and input? Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "additional discussion and input", I assume you mean that you wish to register an objection to its deletion? May I ask why you bring this up at this somewhat inopportune moment after the TFD was listed for over a week? (I suspect I know the answers, but just for the record.) --RL0919 (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem: I had no notification it was going on. TfD notifications don't trigger on watchlists, and the TfD wasn't DELSORT'ed into any category. As is, I think the arguments, while unanimous, were one-sided and don't reflect anything other than a local consensus. Had appropriate notifications been made, the outcome would have been different. Since no policy unequivocally applies, the TfD amounted to an IDONTLIKEIT-fest. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted the template and relisted the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 6. --RL0919 (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello, RL0919. I have a special request which I believe you help me. I would like to view the "Edit history" of the deleted article "Tony Santiago". That article was depleted by the deletion nomimator before he (the nominator) placed it in AfD, which I think was unethical. I have no interest in having the article posted once more, but I would like to view it's edit history prior to deletion. Thank You. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Tony Santiago[reply]

I took a look at the history. While I understand your concern about the person who nominated the article doing heavy editing of it, it appears that almost all of his editing took place after the nomination was already underway. Before the nomination he placed some tags and trimmed one sentence, which is nothing unusual for someone to do when they first encounter an article. It appears that this comment during the deletion discussion, saying that the article should be kept but "could be edited and perhaps, shortened somewhat", prompted him to start cutting material out that he thought wasn't properly sourced. And although he cut out a significant percentage of the article, looking at the individual edits and the reasons he gave in his edit summary, I can't say that his cuts were wrong. We don't accept Wikipedia itself as a source, or private letters, or most Facebook postings. If he hadn't cut that material, eventually someone else would have.

Anyhow, that's my perspective. If you want to view the full history for yourself, it is readily available because it followed the page when I moved it to your userspace. You can view it anytime by choosing the history tab from User:Marine 69-71/Tony Santiago or you can use this link. --RL0919 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. It was very helpful. My real concern about the person who nominated the article is that (I may be wrong, mind you) I believe that there is a tag-teaming trend against me, by that editor and another editor; for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Santiago (3rd nomination) Revision history of User:Marine 69-71/Tony Santiago Talk:William Walter Kouts Talk: List of Puerto Ricans and [Talk: Irish immigration to Puerto Rico. I am hoping that this trend will stop. I don't mean to bother you, thank you once more. Tony the Marine (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without trying to untangle the entire history, it is obvious from the pages you link and from the current WP:AN discussions that you and User:ScottyBerg have some disagreements. Not sure who the other user might be that you think is tag teaming, and I'm not in a position to say if any of this is intentionally aggressive or just a case of people who edit in the same areas clashing over their different opinions. There are plenty of others who are more apt to get involved in wiki-drama, so I'll leave sorting that to them. What I can say is that when things get to you to the point that you start posting to multiple people about being "sick an tired of the BS that goes on", it is time to step back and remember that it's just Wikipedia. I don't know if that's helpful advice or if it just sounds condescending, but I always try to keep a healthy perspective on what's important enough in life to be upset over, and pictures in an infobox are way down the list. --RL0919 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for the advice. It is well taken. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening Of The template:infobox battle TFD

Thanks for the message letting me know about this.Curb Chain (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for helping with the RFCs. Let's hope they will lead to a fruitful discussion. So Why 20:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, my first WikiLove. OK, that just sounds weird. If I test the functionality on my own user page, would that be wiki-masturbation? Anyway, thanks. :-) --RL0919 (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have giving it to you anyway but this way I could also test the new WikiLove feature ;-) Wiki-Masturbate all you want but let me get away first :-P Regards So Why 21:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

Whack!

You have been whacked with a wet minnow for trying to gain more consensus in the bureaucrat desysop RFC by !voting twice, but being smart enough to use my signature to do it. (Next time, try somebody in the oppose section! ;D [And note that this is in jest!]) Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I had multiple edit conflicts and must have accidentally copied your bullet along with my own. --RL0919 (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of Admin Rights Notification

Hi there,

I've noticed that you're working on this list using AWB, but my bot, User:Thehelpfulbot could help to speed it up also using AWB but under "bot mode" - so you don't have to keep pressing save every time. Would you like me to finish them off for you?

Also, I'd like to remove any templates on the user pages which state that the user is an admin, so could you provide me with the page where you have got your list of admin user talk page from so that I can do a find/replace to remove the administrator template?

Thanks,

The Helpful One 21:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got a suggestion for another message bot also. I'm more than halfway done at this point, so I might as well finish out. But if you want to remove admin templates, have at it. The list of affected users is here. --RL0919 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the list, I've ran my bot through the standard templates, and removed them on the following pages:

There was a larger list of pages where saving was unsuccessful, so this is if the user page redirects to the user talk page, or if they don't have any of the standard templates transcluded on their main page. However, this does not mean that they don't have the template on the page - as it could be under a subpage of the user - I'm not sure how to fix this - do you have any suggestions?

Non-edited pages

Thanks, The Helpful One 22:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan on programming a bot to do it, then what I would suggest is cross-checking the user pages against Category:Wikipedia administrators. If they have an "I'm an admin" type template on their page (via sub-page or not), they should show up in the category since these templates include the category placement. (If they've made up some custom userbox that doesn't do this, good luck. You'd probably have to check those manually.) Then you would have to look for the sub-page (which should also be in the category) and remove the template from there. --RL0919 (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A spot-check of a few of these suggests that quite a few are blanked, redirected, or have no admin-related info on them. Other cases vary, including some that simply tagged the page directly to the category without using a template. --RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the early warnings to the inactive admins?

Hello, RL0919. I happened to see your notification on El C's page, stating that "your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return". Per the posts above, I presume the same note appears on many other inactive admin pages. However, as far as I can see, what you say is inconsistent with the addition to WP:ADMIN (a policy) which NP made in consequence of the Village Pump RFC on inactive admins. The policy goes like this: Admin accounts which have made no edits or administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped. This desysopping is not to be considered permanent, or a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the admin tools. The admin must be contacted on their user talk page and via email (if possible) one month prior to the request for desysopping and again several days before the desysopping would go into effect.
A month, and then again several days before the desysopping would go into effect.. ? And yet El C has already been desysopped. What happened to the prior contacts, which must be made, according to the policy? I don't see anything like that on his talkpage. E-mails are also mentioned in the policy; have those been sent? Bishonen | talk 22:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

There is discussion about this at WP:BN#Removal of Sysop right for inactive Admins. The short version is that ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) jumped the gun and made a request for the desysoppings on Meta, which the stewards fulfilled without checking to confirm that the process had been followed or even if the list he provided met the inactivity standards. ResidentAnthropologist has been duly trouted and a couple of prematurely desysopped admins have had their bit restored. So far no one has asked to have the entire desysopping reversed and re-done according to the correct process, but notifying the affected users was seen as necessary, so I volunteered for that task. --RL0919 (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that, though it would have been nice if your notes had contained a reference to the policy and an acknowledgement that it hadn't been followed. Full disclosure, you know. For my own part, I favour backing up and doing the procedure all over again, correctly, and I see on BN that I'm not entirely alone in that view. Regards, Bishonen | talk 07:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

RE: Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity

Cheers mate, thanks for the heads up! ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 02:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin inactivity note

Thanks for the note, much appreciated. I'm not sure if I'll return to editing/admining, so I'll leave things as-is for now. Gazimoff 08:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]