User talk:Rd232/archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


WP:VPI

Antiflame-barnstar.png The Anti-Flame Barnstar
I have noticed that even though the argument on the proposal has been heated. You are very civil and I want to commend you for that. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't always succeed with trying to stay civil, so recognition is nice :) Rd232 talk 03:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Re your sort out of the discussion page of 'Counterpunch', thank you for your efforts; they seem to me to be so fair minded that I would have accepted you blamming some of my comments on the grounds of them being opinion and original research. I got slightly interested in the Shamir gig after a hack at the New Statesman couldn't account for labelling him in the 'Shamir-is-a-devious-manipulative-folk-devil' manner of the Grauniad et al. I fear that you may be making a rod for your own back but I wish you well.Keith-264 (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know

Compass barnstar.png The Guidance Barnstar
For recognizing the need for and creating Wikipedia:Copy-paste. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I refer people to this all the time now. At first, I wasn't entirely sure of the need of it (since of course the lengthy policy pages are crystal-clear to me :D), but began to realize its utility first with younger users, then with ESLs and finally with pretty much everybody who doesn't have time or inclination to wade through a suite of lengthy documents to get to the core of the matter. So, bravo. And thanks for offering some truly enduring guidance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm glad it's useful - and you would know! :) Rd232 talk 14:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

User at AN/I

Hi. You commented in the last thread at AN/I that concerned user Terra Novus, who signs himself as "Novus Orator". Partly at my initiative, a new thread has been opened there that I consider as simply a continuation of the previous one. Because I consider it so, I've thought it proper to contact each administrator who took part in that last discussion, to disclose the fact. I believe this is an allowed notification for that reason. If you'd like to reply to me concerning this message you can do so here, as I've temporarily watchlisted this page. Thank you,  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably stay out of it, I'm low on time. Rd232 talk 17:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

 

Testing your enotif settings...

Or replying to your question, whichever :D I'd expect that the next major cluster deployment will be the alpha release of MW 1.18, which is tentatively slated for June/July. Although don't forget that this is the same sort of provisional scheduling which had a tentative release for 1.17 of the third week in March (currently at beta1)... Happymelon 14:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. So maybe 3-6 months, I guess. You did mention a temporary Javascript alternative. Any idea how feasible / hard to do might that be (and/or might it cause load issues?)? Rd232 talk 14:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't be hard at all; we already load MediaWiki:Sysop.js through javascript, it would just be an extension of that mechanism. Happymelon 16:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I see (loading via MediaWiki:Common.js). But that relies on the existence of a 'sysop' usergroup; I thought there was no autoconfirmed user group, and without that I don't see how you'd identify users not subject to the proposed creation restriction. Rd232 talk 16:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested to look at WT:ITE#Implementation where User:Gary King wrote some code to do something very similar. I haven't yet had a chance to try it out. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

interesting, thanks. Rd232 talk 14:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Signpost

You mean in addition to the (okay, brief) coverage in last week's issue? What more is there to say? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see it now, I did look and thought it hadn't been covered. Rd232 talk 18:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

closure

Interesting strategy. Not that I don't understand the effort to remove drama, but I was a bit curious as to how that was going to play out given how strong consensus was. I was following along, (not commenting or !voting) and had to wonder what loophole, wp:point, wikilawyering, magic rabbit out of the hat was going to appear in order to save his ... ummmm ... current "efforts?" this time. Seems like so many "Absolutely, positively, end-of, super-duper, game over, no more, last chances" have been granted here recently. I hope you're right and the user will take the advice on-board, but my "wp:crystal ball" suspects that your kind and best efforts may go in vein (or is it vain?). I see you're trying to take a bit of a break here from WP, and I'm in no great need for any reply or anything - just wanted to stop by and mention this. Hope all goes well for you. (And I honestly do consider you one of fairest, compassionate, reasonable, and trustworthy admins. this project has to offer - so please don't take this as finding fault). Cheers and Best Rd. — Ched :  ?  01:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Peace Barnstar 6.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For an artful close of an AN/I thread. It may not have stopped the drama, but it was a bloody good effort. Fences&Windows 23:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice that some people got it. :) Possibly a more expansive summary would have helped, to clarify that I was bringing the ban bandwagon to a halt, not blowing it up. Rd232 talk 23:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

LISTCOMPANY

The section that WP:LISTCOMPANY is supposed to point at doesn't exist. (Not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, Rd. Sergeant Cribb (talk · contribs) has now commented in the ANI thread, and regretfully not expressed any intention to stop tracking my edits. What do you suggest is the next stage, because as I've said, I'm not comfortable with being hounded...! ╟─TreasuryTaginspectorate─╢ 18:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I made a proposal. I urge you to accept your side of that. Rd232 talk 18:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't rule out accepting it on further consideration this evening, but at first glance, I'm not sure why I should be required to make a concession in order to not have my edits stalked... ╟─TreasuryTagTellers' wands─╢ 18:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That's not the primary reason; in fact it's barely even a secondary one. The issue is the general feedback you're getting from other people even in that thread, plus the way people reacted in the previous thread, and a longer-term history of Stuff Happening. I think a venue for people to clearly express whatever points they wish to make in a constructive-feedback forum would be helpful for everyone. If they don't do it there, it'll be somewhere more judgemental, like ANI or RFC/U. Rd232 talk 19:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, I don't feel comfortable entering into a compromise over an issue where there should be a clear-cut position. Sergeant Cribb must not stalk/track/target/insert-politically-correct-word-here my edits and that is all there is to it. It is a violation of WP:HOUND and it is a violation of WP:CLEANSTART. I would like him to agree to permanently stop ____ing my edits.
I may subsequently decide to voluntarily go in for editor review, of my own accord or reacting to somebody's request, but it is unreasonable that I should be shanghaied into doing it simply in order to secure a situation which should be the case anyway – namely, being free from the stalking of a third-account CLEANSTART editor with a grudge. ╟─TreasuryTaghigh seas─╢ 19:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
If you don't want to be (or appear to be) "shanghaied" into it, when it's clearly a good idea, there's an easy solution: just go and open one right now. Separate it from the Cribb thing, which is after all separate - they've just arisen as solutions at the same time, but they're not linked. So definitively unlink them. Rd232 talk 19:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
From SC's latest post on ANI, it looks like the 'Cribb thing' may be reaching a conclusion of its own accord. But if it doesn't result in SC unconditionally no longer tracking my edits, I think I will have no option but to leave Wikipedia, because in my view the community tolerating that sort of thing would be unacceptable – in which case an editor review would be superfluous.
I'm also not sure that your proposal was the best tactic in the circumstances, because it could potentially have (and luckily it doesn't seem to, to the Sergeant's credit) painted SC into a corner where he was basically able to say, "I'm going to follow you and your edits around Wikipedia until you submit to an editor-review."
We'll just see what happens next if that's OK with you. ╟─TreasuryTagstannary parliament─╢ 19:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Noindex

Observing this,[1] I realized a had a few subpages under my username that were lacking that tag, and have now added it.

What about similar subpages under my talk page? Do they need the "noindex"? Or are talk pages and their subpages automatically "noindex"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, user talk namespace is automatically noindexed. I've added a note at {{NOINDEX}}. Rd232 talk 19:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
See also the note I just added about related templates, at {{NOINDEX}}. Rd232 talk 19:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It was the right thing to do

Hi Rd232, your closure of ANI about banning TT at administrative noticeboards was the right thing to do. It was brave of you to close it against the consensus. It was an action of a real unafraid administrator. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

thank you - kind of you to say that. Rd232 talk 23:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI ecs

Your last two comments removed previous people's comments. Could you check yourself next time? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. I'm sure you're familiar with the relevant bug. Rd232 talk 21:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
All too well, unfortunately.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

just sayin ...

Admin Barnstar.png The Admin's Barnstar
for going so far above and beyond the call of duty. — Ched :  ?  03:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You have earned a true fan. Your work amazes me dude. — Ched :  ?  03:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

To be a bit more specific, I'm simply in awe at how you managed to be so honest, and fair to all sides. Your ability to to be impartial, fair, honest, and non-judgmental is simply a joy to behold. — Ched :  ?  03:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You're very kind. Thank you. Rd232 talk 09:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Kudpung/RfC for trial (draft)

Hi. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but it's only a user space draft! But to address your suggestions, I have deliberately avoided the issue of the Article wizard, because the very reason all RfC get bogged down is that editors keep introducing changes to the proposal, and adding 'View from...' which forces the whole issue to be redebated again, and the RfC ends up trying to address too many issues at once. The original RfC for this started with 500 people, and after months of debate they all got fed up following it - me included, and no uninvolved admin wanted the job of sifting through the accumulated mess. After nobody cared any more for another four weeks, I pressed for an independent summary. Secondly, we should not be asking users to debate issues that were not part of the original RfC. The consensus was for a 4 - 6 month trial, followed, by a 1 - 3 month evaluation period; we don't want an important issue like this to go the way of the recent pending changes review. If we keep it simple, we can have the trial passed in 14 days, and get on with simply making the software adjustments to the Wizard in the background, and changing the front-end texts as necessary (some of which I have started doing the drafts for). I'm convinced it will all be a success and that no one will even want the trial to end anyway. The NPPers will be cheesed off of course, but if you've followed the R & D that SnottyW and I have been doing for the past 7 months, you'll see that it won't be such a bad thing at all. I've already warned at least another ten '500-edit' NPPers today about applying the wrong tags, and passing the wrong articles. What I am going to suggest - when this phase is up and running - is that we turn NPP into a right, like reviewer was, or simply commute reviewer to NPP, and stop brand new and extremely inexperienced users from patrolling pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I realise now that you are the driving force behind the Wizard. I've never used it of course and I only have a fleeting overview of its operation. You'll need to decide on how to make the software force any new users through the Wizard. I don't know what they get faced with, and I'm not going to sock puppet myself to find out! Waht it does need, is a button for the people who want to make articles about schools. There is a lot that can be done with php and js - almost anything really. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"a button for the people who want to make articles about schools." - like there currently is one for companies? What would it say? Feel free to post some thoughts at WT:WIZ. Rd232 talk 12:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is a problem. Not only am I the driving force behind the Wizard, but I was the most active editor on the RFC, creating the collaborative views, and created User:Rd232/creationdraft to show what new users might see. I was about to draft an RFC on the trial when I saw you'd beaten me to it; does this mean that I'm stuck with what you wrote (and if so, what does "draft" mean?)?
As for the Wizard: (a) you can use all aspects of the Wizard from your own account (though you might raise eyebrows posting at AFC). (b) the technical aspects of allowing creation via the Wizard only are not difficult, though it would require a minor software change (to allow a limited exemption on the mainspace creation restriction, by checking the HTML referer for referring pages allowed to bypass it). That might seem a strong argument against - but a minor software change is required anyway, so that the creation restriction can be applied only to mainspace (with current software settings, it would apply to all namespaces). Rd232 talk 12:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • comment Hope you guys don't mind if I jump in here. I don't have a real strong feelings one way or the other in respect to "should anons be allowed to create new pages" debate (seeing both sides of the issue); however, one thing did stick out that struck me in this conversation. The establishing NPP as a "right". Not that I'm strongly opposed (and I certainly understand the bad tagging issues), but I think that NPP is actually a pretty good place for people to get experience with how Wikipedia works. Sure, some folks are going to get things wrong on occasion, but that's how people learn sometimes. Just thinking back (outloud so to speak) to when I was a noob. Like the work you guys are doing though. Looking forward to how it all shakes out. Have a good weekend. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  13:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Rd232 , it's not a problem at all. I only drew up a suggestion for a draft of a possible RfC in my user space to show Blade, because we had come to the conclusion that since the consensus had been announced 3 days ago and no one was doing anything, I would go ahead and put it together. There's no question that I'm going to run an official debate in my own userspace or even on my tp - I wrote an essay about keeping discussions in the right place. That said, I'm more than perfectly happy to let someone else do it. As I stated however, we need to guard against turning it into a typical RfC that gets into a mess because people keep coming in and wanting to discuss items that are not on the agenda. We need to keep this strictly within the consensus, just fix the durations within the parameters that were recommended. We already have broad consensus to fix the Wizard and AFC. How the devs at MediaWiki go abut it is up to the programmers, who I believe are actually paid by the WMF for their work. - as a webapp designer myself, I know that there are dozens of ways to skin a bear.
On another subject, now that I have had a good look at the Wizard, there are quite a few things that could be addressed. First of all, you need to know who your clients are going to be. Well, they are going to be mainly people from the Indian sub continent, the Philippines; rappers, DJs and garage bands, fans of Taiwanese and Korean toy-boy bands and girlie groups, children writing about their schools, soccer fans, on the one hand , and and professional corporate spammers and bloated CEOs of start ups. The first bunch don't read the instructions because we make it too hard, while the college students who are spamming like mad for a few cents a line, and the budding execs, think they are above reading manuals. I would be happy to work on recasting the instructions and reducing the TLDR instruction creep, and I would gladly make a set of skeleton pre-load templates for some more specific article types, to include more detail. I've have a school article page template that I've been using for years, for example, that already includes all the sections and sub sections, infobox, image holders, etc. What we have to avoid is simply the trash articles all being channeled through the Wizard instead of waiting to be knobbled by NPPers. The goal of this new rule is twofold: Discouraging the vandals, attackers, nonsense, and instant spammers, while encouraging those GF writers who have a bit of patience, to make their first article with a bit of help from us all. Do pop over to Blade's tp and see what we were discussing last night, because basically, Snotty, he and I got the whole ball rolling because of the terrible state NPP was/is in. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. 1. On the Wizard - sure, any attempts to improve are always welcome. 2. On developers - AFAIK they're mostly volunteers, with WMF paid development largely restricted to working on the mission-critical/performance-critical core. Not that it matters, and I'm not entirely certain. 3. The big problem for me is that having very strongly supported the idea and having promoted a particular interpretation of it, that interpretation is severely (if not quite fatally) weakened by leaving out the create-via-Wizard option. My argument was that the idea is about requiring new users to use some form of creation which involves assistance, and the significance of the Wizard option was immediacy (not having to wait for an autoconfirmed user to help). I'm not even sure I'd support the idea if that Wizard option wasn't going to be part of it. So I feel very strongly indeed that this needs to be part of the trial. 4. Of course we don't want a mess - and that's one reason to provide some structure up front. If you only present one option, you're bound to get a lot of debate. If you present a reasonable range of options (2-5), people can support whichever they wish, and whatever gets the most votes is the form implemented. It's not like if none of the options gets consensus we'll do nothing! So I think there's certainly room to provide a version of the proposal with Wizard option and without, and 2 types of trial implementation (evaluate during trial, and switch off with evaluation after). Rd232 talk 15:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


@Ched: I personally think it was a bad mistake right from the beginning to allow totally new, completely inexperienced users to patrol new pages. Just as I think it would be wrong to allow a hobby micro-lite pilot to fly an A380 single-handed from Singapore to San Francisco. The point is, many of the patrollers have never edited anything, have never read the policies, guidelines, or WP:NPP, and not only do they get the tagging badly wrong, but their manner in dealing with the problems on their talk pages also leaves a lot to be desired. Wikipedia is completely transparent - its quality is measured not only by its content, but also by the way it communicates with the general public. We have to patrol the patrollers and that defeats the object of the exercise. Very few are experienced editors like Blade, or the one or two admins who do a stint occasionally for some comic relief from their regular work. We're still going to need patrollers, but now that we suddenly have a few thousand reviewers with a right without a job, perhaps they should be the ones to check what comes out of the wizard's cauldron. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I think there needs to be more emphasis on guiding and assisting new users, rather than policing their contributions. Somewhat more experienced users are more suitable in that role. I'm not sure what that means in practical terms in relation to NPP, but it should be part of the debate. Rd232 talk 15:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
PS in terms of analogy, it's more like allowing a hobby micro-lite pilot to supervise someone with an unknown level of experience (quite possibly zero) fly an A380 single-handed from Singapore to San Francisco. And as guidance, all they can do is slap sticky notes around the cockpit, because there's no time to actually talk to the pilot... :) Rd232 talk 15:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
@Kudpung. You're point is well taken, although I'd hardly compare editing a webpage to flying an aircraft. I think much of this is in how a person patrols new pages. For me, it was looking at a new page, comparing it to established pages, and seeing how to bring something "new" up to a better standard. In that regard it was very much a learning experience, and IMHO a valuable one. I suppose that there could be editors who jump into NPP and just muck up the works, and there is where I have to agree with Rd232 in respect to "guiding" and "assisting" new users. Wikipedia promotes itself as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. But wait! You can't create any new pages. You can't "patrol" any new pages that others have created. I'm sorry, but that just seems to fly in the face of all that we're supposed to be. It's not that someone wrongly tagging, or messing up a ref, or even poorly formatting a page that's new is going to BREAK the wiki. Everyone is "new" at some point in time, and I think we're going to be more encouraging if we just let folks "jump in the deep end, and give it a shot". We have admins. who are more than willing to block someone who won't listen or take advice - so I'm just not favorably impressed with piling restriction upon restriction on new users. There is already a huge gulf between admins. and non-admins. here, and this sort of "leveling up" I think would simply further distance experienced users from the newer ones. On a positive note: I really do like this new page wizard idea. I think that is a great place to make things easier and better for everyone. Sure, we're always going to have those new garage band articles; but, we have plenty of folks here that outright enjoy deleting stuff - so I don't think it's as big a problem as some other editors might. — Ched :  ?  17:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
@Ched, unfortunately, these discussions have all been had before before, and I'm not really in a hurry to redebate seven months work of monitoring the NPP system. There were obviously some patrollers who were doing a reasonable job, very few appeared to be observing the recommendations at WP:NPP, and many articles were being passed as good that should have been very quickly deleted. We have tables and stats that clearly demonstrate the system was was not performing as it should and that is why Blade proposed the change in status for creating new articles, for which we now have a consensus to go ahead.

@d232 I have just spent the last three hours going over the entire discussions and talk pages again, and although there are some fleeting mentions of the Wizard, your suggestion: "An exemption can be engineered so that editors going through the Article Wizard can immediately create articles." received a total of 7 supports: and there was no further discussion about it. The closing admin's summary was: ...the discussion also showed consensus for making (unspecified) improvements to the Article Wizard and giving more attention to the Articles for Creation process, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the main proposal. I will therefore firmly advocate that the RfC for the trial should be about the duration of the trial only, and its evaluation period, no alternatives to be suggested, because the discussion has been had already, and that you should consider making a quite separate RfC concerning your idea for allowing the use of the Wizard to bypass the requirement for autoconfirmed. We need to get the trial up and running and not wait another two months for a whole gamut of peripheral details to be debated. For the Wizard idea to work, because it only took me just under 2 minutes to click through all six steps and create a page from the skeleton template, something needs to be done to deter the professional spammer who already has his text ready to paste, or the bored 8th grader who wants to make a hoax or an attack page, for whom just 6 extra mouse clicks are a small hurdle. Helping the serious creator is one thing, but let's not loose sight of the fact that 80% of new pages are absolute rubbish of some kind or another, and the only help they need is the admin's delete button. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny, a common criticism of the Wizard has been that it's far too focussed on keeping junk out, and not enough on helping good-faith editors get started. I think you really underestimate the impact of going through the Wizard, compared to going straight to an editbox. Of course some will carry on regardless and create junk anyway, but you seem to think it'll hardly act as a junk filter at all. Perhaps some NPPers could shed light on that issue. As for the support for the Wizard approach - yes the view only got 7 supports, but there were quite a few supportive comments dotted around and the concept was headlined above the TOC. Frankly it borders on dishonesty to have done that, implying it's part of the package, and then not do it. Plus, as someone who very strongly supported the idea when that aspect seemed part of it, I'm very uncomfortable going ahead without that aspect. You argue you don't want to complicate things, but this issue seems the only really big thing that needs debating, in terms of implementation. The RFC was on the basic principle, and you're jumping straight to a specific trial, without further discussion of the details of implementation. If space for implementation issues cannot be found in your trial RFC, I may start a conceptually prior implementation RFC, and yours will have to wait. Rd232 talk 21:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
What's all this about dishonesty? I was neither involved with the refactoring of the threads during that RfC, nor with any of the long winded meta discussions about the RfC itself. In fact the RfC got so convoluted and off track that I even took it off my watchlist for several days. You are perfectly right of course about the Wizard being primarily an assistant rather than a junk filter - the junk filter is the new rule that's going to be implemented as a trial, and backed by 7 months of empirical study. The only reason I made the first scratchings of an idea for an RfC for the trial in my user space was because nobody else appeared to be doing anything. Then someone accidentally published a link to my draft to the VP. I offered to help, because Snottywong, Blade , and I started this ball rolling 7 months ago, but I'm perfectly happy to step back when others are keen to take over, and I do not have the slightest intention of standing in your way. However, if you insist on making this trial dependent on the Wizard, where in fact any involvement of the Wizard depends on the implementation of the trial, it's entirely possible that with all he extra discussion involved, it may all take a lot longer to get implemented. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
If the dishonesty is anyone's, it's mine, for potentially misleading people. I put the Wizard option above the TOC, and if not's even up for discussion as part of the implementation, then people may have been misled. Now, I don't insist on making the trial dependent on the wizard option, but I do think it should be discussed. This process cannot be quick because of the software changes required, so I'm not much bothered about a little extra delay. Rd232 talk 23:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, looks like you're too late anyway. Protonk has posted a new RfC to my user space. I've asked him to remove it. Have a quick look at it now if you're interested before I delete the page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
My apologies for troubling you Kudpung. I've been trying to catch up on my reading here, and I'm sure there are plenty of areas that I've missed. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  21:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Move

It would be curious to know what Arbcom would say about what you just did. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You indicated you were about to delete it. Do you object to the move? If so, what do you want to do? Rd232 talk 00:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Nothing. I will ask an arb if such a move is allowed just for future reference, as I have tools enough to delete my own, and any other pages. I believe what you should have done would to have copied anything you may have wished to keep, and paste it into your own work, or even use your own tools to view the deleted page and recover the text from there. The incident will probably not affect my support to get this new measure implemented as soon as possible as I'm very keen to see a significant reduction in the 80% blatant junk that gets created every day and is allowed to be poorly patrolled by NPPers, and of course seeing as it was based partly on my contributions to seven months of research. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Erm, you're aware of the copyright issues involved with copying and pasting from a subsequently deleted page? If you had deleted it, I'd have restored it and then moved it. I understand it's unusual, but I really don't see what you're fussed about. Rd232 talk 00:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I mentioned this in an edit summary on my page, but I'm flummoxed that your first thought is to talk to arbcom about this. Protonk (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I've already said I'm not fussed about it, but while you guys are so keen on implementing new rules, perhaps we need some other rules clarifying. It's generally not usual for editors to edit other editors user space, and I assume that to extend to deleting and moving without agreement reached first. I probably wouldn't have objected to the move if I had been asked - I'm not one to stand in the way of progress, not that there was much in my sub page worth stealing anyway.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
You said you were going to delete it. If you'd wanted it moved back, we could have done that (and still can). I rarely refer to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, but it springs to mind here, along with WP:IAR. You want to move your page back so you can delete it? Go nuts, you have my permission. Then I'll ask nicely whether I can please undelete it and move it back. Geez, don't we have better things to do? Rd232 talk 01:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I've already told you three times now that I'm not fussed about it. Let's move on. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
It was the use of the word "stealing" that prompted me to reply again. Rd232 talk 10:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Scott_MacDonald_question_re_verifiability_policy.  Chzz  ►  05:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For closing the Terra Novus request. Also for your comments on the article feedback issue. Looking at his next edit, maybe he wasn't ignoring AGF but he could have phrased what he said in a way that didn't raise my hackles. :-) I'm still looking for a venue where we can discuss this as there doesn't seem to be one. The mediawiki feedback page isn't sufficient as there are so few people involved in it - which may be a bit worrying in the context of lack of discussion on enwiki. Any suggestions? Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it's a rare post written in haste and irritation, as so many are, which can't be phrased better :) Anyway, m:Article_feedback is the hub. I presume you're thinking of m:Talk:Article feedback as "the feedback page"; there's a previous page, m:Talk:Article feedback/Public Policy Pilot/Workgroup, which was a bit more engaged. Basically, though, this is a Foundation Project (capital F, capital P) and the sort of venue you're thinking of doesn't seem to exist - partly because meta doesn't really have the same vibe as en.wp. So the conclusion might be to create a page on en.wp to aggregate feedback on the Article Feedback tool (perhaps an RFC?), so that then, with a bit of weight from being organised, there'd more likely be engagement with en.wp views. cheers, Rd232 talk 06:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It needs a page on en.wp, I agree. But I am not sure how to do that. Do you mean an RfC on creating a discussion page or an RfC on the issue? And a discussion page needs a main page, so again I'm a bit out of my depth here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Raising this at WP:ANI since I've just discovered it's to be applied to all enwiki articles tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Per ArbCom, the block of delta needs to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions — BQZip01 — talk 15:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I know. Thanks for the reminder though, I got interrupted by a Skype call and might have forgotten. Rd232 talk 15:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 :-) No malice thought of. Just wanted to make sure it all got logged. — BQZip01 — talk 15:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Last editing restrictions block

I don't see any evidence that Delta was blocked for the excessive violations on the 12th. The discussion on his user page at the time of the block was about edits on the 18th, not the 12th [2]. CBM clearly states: Between 2011-05-18T11:07:41 and 2011-05-18T11:14:54 you made 50 edits. CBM only states that he warned him about it on the 13th [3] and it seems CBM didn't even notice half the violations Delta performed that day as he only warned him once, he seemed unaware that he violated it in the neighbourhood of 20 times that day or I'm sure he would have blocked him, and he violated them again by not having that discussion before performing the task. And even going back 2 more days, May 10, 13:10-13:19 - 93 edits. He spent days thumbing his nose at the community until someone caught him.--Crossmr (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. He's blocked for a week now; in terms of blocking, I'd roll everything previously unsanctioned into that. If you want to use that to support a ban (topic or site), now or in the future, feel free. Rd232 talk 22:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Your date is wrong, or something; he made zero edits from 13.00 to 14.00 on 10 May. [4] Rd232 talk 22:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you looking at UTC? I just hand counted them.. I'd hate to have to scroll back there, but on December 31, he made 49 edits from 15:20-15:29. More evidence this has been going on during this time, these were of course edits related to NFCC as well. I'll check those dates..because yes I'm clearly not seeing it on that list you provided....ah crap.. I can't back my browser up that far since I've gone so far ahead..--Crossmr (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
There is something wrong with the link you're providing, it's not showing all his edits. On my view, I'm getting tons of edits when there is a big hole in the one you're linking to. [5]. These edits. One of our time settings must be messed up.--Crossmr (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
UTC? doesn't matter for 10 May, there were zero edits from about 5 am to about 3pm. I suspect you mean the edits that are from 04.10 to 04.19 (for me - which I thought was the server's UTC time): there's a lot of those and there could well be 93. I'm somewhat disinclined to worry about every old instance of slightly going over 40 edits in 10 minutes (like 49), because the spirit of the restriction was to permit that editing, and I find it hard to imagine how to consistently stick to that limit, when doing thousands of edits over months. It's a bit like real life enforcement of actual speed limits - there is a certain leeway, in practice, most of the time. 93 is way past leeway, to state the obvious. Rd232 talk 23:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are the edits. and no, the spirit doesn't permit 49, the spirit of that was to permit him to go slightly above his editing limit on a per minute basis over a 10 minute period, but not to exceed the 40 in 10 minutes overall. It's supposed to be hard for Delta, because that was the only reason he was permitted to continue to exist here.--Crossmr (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those are the edits that are (for me) 04.10 to 04.19 10 May. Ye-es, I take your point about examining edits, but when the edits are substantively trivial (updating filenames after renaming), there's nothing to check, really. Let's not throw common sense out of the window. I would have said in the first place that the speed restriction shouldn't apply to approved simple tasks like that [approved by explicit prior consensus] - it's just unnecessary. The aim is to require judgement where judgement makes a difference, not prove a point of discipline. Rd232 talk 23:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
There is substantial prior evidence that Beta has not been able to adequately define and stick to such simple tasks, and to address the problems which may arise, when both reasonable and unreasonable obkections are raised. The rate restrictions are the result of extensive community discussion, which may or may not represent "common sense", but are a pragmatic response to the amazing rate at which Betacommand complaints can start piling up. If they are simple tasks, they can just as easily be done at a rate which allows due consideration. Every edit will still get in before the deadline. Franamax (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
If the task is simple enough, and well-defined enough, (by prior community consensus) then the complaints become largely or entirely about the (then-useless) speed restriction. Rd232 talk 09:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit notices

Re. [6], see [7] [8], I've really no idea what this is about but, can you sort it out? Ta.  Chzz  ►  06:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Chzz it's to suppress {{Wikipedia talk navigation}} that editnotice... —James (TalkContribs)4:18pm 06:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliably sourcing statements

A start. SilkTork *Tea time 13:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocks in December 2010 of User:Mbz1

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block log of Mbz1 regarding your December 2010 block of User:Mbz1. The discussion is about the topic User talk:Mbz1/special. Thank you. AGK [] 11:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

question

Hi Rd232, could you please tell me, if I may request ArbCom to review my block, and if so where is the place to ask for such review? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know. You could ask at WT:RFARB, or request a community review at WP:AN. But I don't think anyone's going to be very enthusiastic about investigating an old block, especially as there's already been some discussion at ANI just now. Rd232 talk 18:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
AN is not an option as the current AN/I thread demonstrated. If the matter is brought up to AN, the very same users who made me blocked last time will be right there to "review" it, and with others who simply do not care. Besides it is not only about my block log, it is about me being harassed and over-sanctioned over my block log, it is about me being wikihounded more that any other editor has ever been. ArbCom is the only venue that might provide me with a fair hearing, but they will probably not bother. After all who cares if an editor is being wikihounded to death?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If it's an ongoing problem then the normal dispute resolution options apply, from WP:RFC/U up to an Arbcom case. Rd232 talk 19:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
rd232, I am afraid you do not understand the whole extend of the problem. The thing is that WP:RFC/U will be run by the same very noisy hounds of mine, and anybody who will be brave (or stupid) enough to say something in my support would be accused in being my buddy, and/or my supporter and/or being canvassed, and so on, and so on. You'd like to see some examples? Here's one: "Also, it seems relevant to observe, since the fact hasn't been mentioned previously: As was also the case when Hodja Nasreddin showed up and supported her previously". There are many more like those, but why to bother. ArbCom is my only hope, but I believe they will not accept the case. It will be time involving, so I guess I will make a post on AN/I that will make me indefinitely blocked with no time consuming. At least it will be fun. Best wishes. It was nice to know you.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Well it sounds like nothing less than an Arbcom case might resolve it. You might as well try making a request. Rd232 talk 19:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I only asked an ArbCom member about this possibility and was immediately accused in "forum shopping" and "an attempt to make sure that people who disagree with me are no longer allowed to express their concerns about my behaviour. Funny, isn't it?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Well how about waiting for newyorkbrad to reply, instead of worrying what people you have a dispute with say. Rd232 talk 20:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Counterpunch

Thank you for removing the recent change to the Counterpunch article, which I was about to revert for the same reason.Keith-264 (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but a note about your agreement would be more useful on the article talk page. Rd232 talk 12:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought I had....Keith-264 (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Rd232, could you please allow me to have Confirmed access. I would like to use Twinkle and I see a few pages that need to be moved to new, better names. Croisés Majestic (sur nous mars) 17:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, well I don't see why not but I don't normally do this and don't immediately know how... and I'm very hungry and want to go cook. Please use Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. cheers, Rd232 talk 17:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Delta and Nicaraguan córdoba

Okay, where is one supposed to take this, to see whether this is really how the community wants to see things done?

It is clear that Delta, Hammersoft and Beetstra regard this simply as standard operating procedure, to completely raze a page's content to the ground, far beyond any requirement of WP:NFC, and then proceed with everybody else under the gun of knowing that the default position is that all that content will be deleted in a week -- regardless of the views of anyone apart from Delta, Hammersoft and Beetstra, and with no way to put it to wider community input.

I'm sorry if due to my ignorance of the policy board jungle AN/I isn't the right board to take something like that.

But where else actually has the power to actually stop this abuse, and review whether something like this is remotely a sane or Wikipedian process for getting to a sensible outcome for such pages in line with the wishes of the community. Edit-warring on the page can't be the right way to go; and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement is simply a talking shop, that is not going to have the power to action anything.

How does one get users like Delta et al to take disputed content such as at Nicaraguan córdoba to a community process like FFD, rather than trying to strong-arm their way by force of editing? Where else, apart from AN/I, can give that direction? Jheald (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

We have tried the discussion route for the over use of non-free content in currency related articles and have been ignored. If you actually bothered to read my responses you will see that I support a limited number of non-free files be re-added, which ones are up to those involved in the article and which ones they feel are the most significant. See Hammersofts post on the wikiprojects talk page for more details. ΔT The only constant 12:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
In general, change policy (WP:NFCC etc), or get an RFC to inform practice. There was Wikipedia_talk:NFCC#RfC:_Did_recent_currency_image_deletions_go_beyond_the_proper_aims_and_objectives_of_the_NFC_image_policy.3F only recently. Rd232 talk 13:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Neither WP:NFCC nor any practice discussion I have seen sanction the deliberate removal of content way beyond the requirements of policy. This wasn't primarily about the content issue. It was about the behavioural methods being used to push the content issue. That, it seems to me, is something to legitimately ask for clarification on at WP:AN/I. Jheald (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Well it isn't - ANI is for incidents, not disagreements about policy. We just had a lengthy discussion at WP:AN about this in relation to a possible sanction for Delta, and that didn't go anywhere. Basically, there are opposing views about NFCC enforcement, hence the NFCC RFC. For the moment, you seem to be in the minority. (Personally, I'd use as much non-free content as is legal for WP, since redistributors can already strip non-free if they want; but that position doesn't seem popular.) Rd232 talk 13:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so it should have gone to WP:AN as an ongoing practice being carried out by a number of users, rather AN/I which is for a sudden single incident out of the blue by a single user. My mistake, and I'll remember the distinction for the future. But let's be very clear: this wasn't about appropriate levels of NFC, about which there may well be different views. This was about a behavioural practice: whether it was appropriate to remove far more content than anyone thinks policy requires removing, leaving the article completely bare, damaging our readers; done so that the user can set themselves up as the only arbiter of how much content is appropriate -- when, looking at the RFC discussion at WT:NFC and in particular the support for proposition 2, it appears that there is no actual consensus in the community that there was any overuse in articles like the Nicaraguan one. It's the approach here that I wanted to see discussed, of deliberately and knowingly removing far more content than necessary, in order to establish "facts on the ground"; because it seems to me that such a bull-in-a-china-shop method goes against every norm of how we aim to go about things here. Jheald (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Note: the articles did not need to be stripped completely of all non-free images (though that is an interpretation of 'minimal use of non-free media'), nor is it necessarily the case that it is a final state without images. People could have written proper rationales earlier (why are all 10 needed; why are 2 (out of 10) needed ..?) - or people can do that after all are removed (re-include the minimum amount with rationale - note, that may even be all 10 again ..) - no, people go, almost consistently, into edit wars - or they start with yelling at Delta - because of course Delta is wrong! It is for Delta, Hammersoft, or me, impossible to see which ones are the necessary ones on many subjects - and that is why in many cases discussions are started with WikiProjects or on talkpages (but those discussions are completely ignored).
Rd232, sure, but it is not about the popularity of the idea of using as much as is legal possible - it is about the Foundation asking us to minimise the use of non-free material - I don't know if we could say in a policy 'we don't care what the Foundation says, we include as many non-free images as possible', a lot of stuff is subject to WP:IAR, but I don't know if the Foundation in the end does not have another say). And if it were only overuse-questions (which are indeed cases of interpretation!), Delta and others who enforce WP:NFCC do get it also on blatantly clear violations - removal of images which do not have a fair use rationale are blatantly re-inserted and the removers get yelled at and editors go into edit-wars with removers. The point is discussion, and that does not only lie with the removers, it also lies with the people who want to (re-)include. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Default summaries

You'll be pleased to know - I just added a defaultsummaries.js as a gadget :) so that is one step in the road forward... it seems to be working well at the moment. According to the wikitech-l mailing list a new version of Gadgets extension should be deployed some time in the relatively near future which will allow gadgets to be enabled by default - I am inclined to wait till then and go via that route. --Errant (chat!) 13:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Since he just had a civility issue, I hardly find this edit summary to be appropriate [9] given that all caps writing like that is taken to be as aggressive on the internet, and nowhere on his page or edit notice does he mention anything about not putting talk back notices on his page. And in fact the user he left the note on specifically states on their page that they will go ahead and leave a talk back on your page if you leave them a message on their page.--Crossmr (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping the user got the message, which they failed to do, after that edit summary and a note on their talk page [10]. Sometimes CAPSLOCK helps make my point. In this case it didnt. ΔT The only constant 14:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
That's irrelevant, but your aggressive edit summary was before you informed him that you didn't want to receive those messages: [11], [12].--Crossmr (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Note, also when I requested not to leave a talkback notice, the editor persisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Again irrelevant. It's not okay to make combative aggressive edit summaries because someone did something we don't like. I also don't see you resorting to those.--Crossmr (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, Crossmr, it is also not okay to go to someone else to complain about Delta, without first asking him why he did it (hopefully in good faith .. but seen that you did not assume that here either I doubt if you would have there), nor is it okay to go to another editor and leave a post there and not leaving a notice on the talkpage of the editor you are remarking on. I know you are not under civility sanctions, but I do think that you are being pretty rude here (to say the least). We all expect Delta to be civil, but I also expect it of all other editors on this site. That Delta is under civility restrictions does not mean that others can be uncivil to him - and note that I earlier said that I would consider handing out blocks for editors who do know the rules on this wikipedia but who think they can be uncivil to Delta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
These are rules that I'm apparently unaware of. I frequently see people reporting people to administrators without notifying the person they're reporting, and without asking them for an explanation first. Please point me to the relevant policies so that I can read up on them and add them to my user page for reference. I chose to post it here, because rd232 seems to be handling all things Delta lately and I wanted to avoid another gong show for something that may have simply required little more than a warning. I asked for no specific action. Now, regarding this [13], (we'll keep this discussion all in one place), I don't see where I've assumed bad faith nor been uncivil to Delta. I haven't insulted him, I haven't called him names, nor have I told him off. I dismissed his reasoning, but frankly it makes no sense. He made the edit summary before telling the user not to send him those messages. Passing on a violation of an editing sanction/any other editor problem to an administrator is hardly an assumption of bad faith or uncivil and happens everyday on wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Your interpretation is basically an assumption of bad faith, there could have been other interpretations which you blatantly rejected (even when it turned out you were right). In ignoring that you were uncivil, ànd it is uncivil not to notify him of such remarks. Next time, what: always, please assume good faith first, and be civil. And if you say 'I frequently see people reporting people to administrators without notifying the person they're reporting, and without asking them for an explanation first, then you really should read up to your policies ... this was plainly insulting, Crossmr, and you have now been warned for it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Policing civility is a pain anyway. Can we at least agree not to worry about minor incivility directed at others? I mean really, a bit of SHOUTING for emphasis is about the lowest level of incivility there is. Rd232 talk 23:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, his civility patrol exists for a reason, and it's mostly related to NFCC just as this is. Combined with this [14], I'm getting rather vivid flashbacks. There is a clearly exasperated and condescending tone, and as later revealed, a false assumption made in the statement.[15] His restrictions also require that the community report it. And as was the repeated defence in the last conversation "it wasn't reported, so it doesn't count" it needs to be noted somewhere that someone objected to his editing at the time. Now if we all decide that it isn't worth doing anything over, that's fine, though I think a warning is at least in order since this was a major issue before his block, and one of the causes of multitude of AN/I threads over his behaviour previously. He needs to deal with users over NFCC issues cordially.--Crossmr (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This is all getting quite tiresome. Speaking abstractly here, and not to any particular incident; over and over and over again we see editors launching attacks (and yes, they are attacks) against Δ for the teeniest of transgressions, or in some cases trumping up violations that are non-existent. There is a body of editors who will not be satisfied until Δ is permanently banned from the site. It is beyond rational discourse anymore. This madness has to end. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#MickMacNee and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Chester Markel (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to unblock yourself, I can copy your statement to the arbitration request. Chester Markel (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, being listed as an involved party I suppose I should make a statement. I'm not going to unblock myself; I'll make a brief statement here and leave it at that. Rd232 talk 11:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Heh, seeing you blocked and then finding an ARBCOM case notice on your page shocked me for a minute. :) Don't see that you're involved there anyway.
Have a relaxing sabbatical, Amalthea 10:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Mm, well if I'd properly respected the sabbatical in the first place, you wouldn't be shocked, and I'd be more relaxed... :) Rd232 talk 11:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an unfortunate turn of events. I understand stuff can get to be insane here, but nulli te bastardes carborundum etc. Best of luck. → ROUX  08:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement

  • Expletives are not the main problem. They bother some people but not others, and so discouraging them is best, as is ignoring them when they occur. Mick uses them more than most, but this is just a symptom of the actual problem.
  • The actual problem is (per David Levy) Mick's apparent inability to accept that others may in good faith disagree or otherwise act in a manner he disapproves of, combined with getting very angry about it. This tends to lead to personal attacks, especially in the form of various forms of accusations of bad faith, and a vicious cycle of not really listening to what people are saying, which sharply reduces the likelihood of disputes being resolved amicably. More generally, it leads to an aggressive tone and manner which fundamentally undermines the collaborative environment Wikipedia needs to function.
  • Civility enforcement is notoriously difficult, because civility is often subjective and selective attempts to enforce it can be used as a weapon which actually reduces collaborativeness instead of enhancing it. There are no easy answers, especially when the civility problem is not an occasional outburst but rather a general approach. Here's a novel one: apply a civility probation under the terms of which any editor may apply a specific {{hat}}-style template ({{civ-hat}}) to comments by the user, if the comments are uncivil. The user would not be able to remove the hatting unless they substantively rewrote the comment (assuming it wasn't replied to, in which case striking or apologising inside the hat), and if someone else removes the hatting in good faith it can't be re-applied. An editor clearly abusing hatting after warnings would be blocked for disruption. Yes, it's probably a bad idea, but good ones are in short supply.

Rd232 talk 11:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

YesY Done Amalthea 11:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: MickMacNee's version of events regarding my involvement is wrong in too many ways to count. He repeats accusations of bad faith, and declares that I'm "pissed off about my highlighting his failure"... a statement which an outside observer would consider ludicrous, if they bothered to read the prior conversations I had trying to persuade him of my point of view of the disputed incident where I acted as an admin. (Clearly a pointless endeavour, since not even the most basic of points I made has stuck.) Perhaps worth noting is that my proposal of an edit restriction in the ANI thread flowed directly from Mick's very Mick response to my merely noting the existence of the RFC/U, and then my explaining to one editor who complained about admin inaction why I couldn't do anything further. If he had responded in a civil manner, instead of letting me have it with both barrels, the thread would have gone very differently. If any arbs want clarification of what actually happened re the Delta/TreasuryTag ANI threads and followups (beyond looking at the relevant discussions), the cause of Mick's animosity to me, I'm available by email (please use a you've-got-mail notice). Rd232 talk 18:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I've added this to your statement. Chester Markel (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Addendum2:

@newyorkbrad: OK, I will if/when the case is accepted and gets underway, if I actually end up participating (I have no desire to, but it may be unavoidable)
@Mick: "private evidence"? All I said was "I'm available by email". You're quite jumping to conclusions if you think that (a) I'd submit anything by email at all (the "you've got mail" notice was purely to cover both angles, I'm planning not to check back on this mess onwiki but I may do, and I don't check that email address so often) (b) that I'd submit anything by email without expecting it to be made public on my behalf or (c) that arbs would accept that unless there was some actual very good reason (which there isn't - there isn't any "private evidence" in this case, since everything happened entirely onwiki). I accept that mention of email could be misconstrued; but the immediacy and manner in which you jump to that conclusion is entirely typical.
@anybody who cares: my self-block wasn't some kind of "tantrum" or strategy; it was a genuine attempt to get the hell away from MickMacNee the only way I could be sure ("wikibreak enforcer", Mick? how little you know about the difficulty of really enforcing wikibreaks... cf Noscript, Leechblock, Stayfocusd and others). So I'm not best pleased at the development of an Arbcom case, which will probably amount to nothing constructive anyway, but give Mick lots more opportunity to lob insults and accusations and general bile at me. Rd232 talk 21:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to those who moved my comments across, I promise there won't be any more. Someone please drop me a line (email+user talk) if my further participation is required. Thanks. Rd232 talk 21:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving this myself with my public account (I'd forgotten about that, haven't used it in a year, and forgot to block it first). Rd232 public talk 22:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know an administrator could block him/herself. PS: Wouldn't a 1-month wiki-break suffice? GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
re "PS" - see above on wikibreak enforcement. Rd232 public talk 22:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Or to be more precise, Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer is trivially defeated by Firefox + NoScript, since the latter can turn off a website's Javascript, and the Enforcer needs it to work. Thence to browser addons like Leechblock and Stayfocusd, but they're easily defeatable too. Nothing comes close to the enforcement a block provides. Rd232 talk 09:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Keeping Rd232 public unblocked would seem to make dodging self-imposed wikibreaks even easier, would it not? ;) Throwaway85 (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't intentional. But it proved useful for the arbcom case. Rd232 public talk 14:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • My present statement was to send a very specific message, but it is in no way connected to you (even suggestion-wise). Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 2, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [] 11:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-3rr-resolve

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Uw-3rr-resolve has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. AzaToth 22:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I wondered where you were. I didn't know you were on sabbatical. The anon only has a toe over my line in the sand, but I guess he strode passed yours. I find that breaks where I just do essential reverts on a few of my favorite watched articles, and leave everything else well alone, are as or more effective and relaxing than taking a complete break. Maybe something for you to consider? DrKiernan (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. But I've been vaguely trying that for a while, and it doesn't work terribly well; I always end up more involved with details than I'd want. Rd232 talk 14:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification regarding MickMacNee case

Further to preliminary deliberation by the drafting arbitrators, this message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee considers you to be a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee, and that your conduct will be examined during the proceedings. The Committee is also aware that you have blocked your own account, and notes that the examination of your conduct will take place irrespective of whether you participate in the case or not. As a matter of standard operating procedure, you can be unblocked summarily in order to participate in the case. Please clarify whether you intend to participate in the arbitration proceedings, and if you want to be unblocked so that you can do so. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [] 13:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

? I already submitted evidence using my public account, which I'd neglected to block before blocking my main account [and in case anyone wonders, you can't block others while blocked]. I don't have anything to add at this point, and if Mick is indeffed it may be moot anyway. Let me know if the Committee has a strong preference for any further participation to be with my main account, so that I can take that into account in the event that I have anything else to say. Rd232 talk 13:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello! I noticed you contributed to Middlesex University entry on Wikipedia. If you studied at that University, please consider including this userbox on your userpage. Simply paste {{User:Invest in knowledge/mdx}} to your userpage. Thank you. Invest in knowledge (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Korea articles

Greetings. I would like to let you know that there are a series of articles that deal with Korean history that need to be revised. they probably do not need extensive revision, but much of the content is simply not true, and that can be shown easily from credible, academic resources. However, whenever I or others try to point out these issues, a very unaccommodating group of Korean nationalists simply remove any revisions and adjust the content back to what they want it to be. There have been many attempts over the years to bring resolution to this. Though I have not been part of any concerted attempts to deal with the issue, I am willing to step up and be part of a group that would help to bring balance. And that is the issue: no balance. The pages are - for the most part - controlled by Korean nationalists. Please know that I am not trying to control the page, only work together with a group of people - including the the Koreans - to bring balance. Also, I am not very familiar with the admin process, and am contacting you because as I was surfing I realized you had admin privileges. If you know of a more appropriate person to contact, please let me know. But let me know how you think this process should proceed. I am extremely busy, and only have just today decided to devote time to this because I feel what is happening on those pages violates the very core spirit of Wikipedia. Thanks for your time.Computer1200 (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(Friendly talk page stalker here) If you feel that there is a problem with violations of NPOV, or that other editors of the article are otherwise failing to adhere to Wikipedia policy, you might wish to try some form of third-party dispute resolution, or post something at a noticeboard such as the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Rd232. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

UOJComm (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Rd232. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the MickMacNee Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 708 words and 10 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT(talk) 06:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've chopped the useless end off, and resisted the temptation to replace it with a complaint about how the case has been handled. Rd232 public talk 09:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:VPP#Amend WP:NFCC

Concerning your claim that "mild abuse of fair use is much less of a problem than uploading images with false licenses. It's a lot harder to do anything about that, but in terms of damaging the interests of rights-holders and of WP content re-users (and perhaps also the risk of WMF being sued), that is the elephant in the room"- as someone who does a moderate amount of enforcement in these areas, I completely agree. However, if this is the issue, we should be working towards making it easy to find and delete (or, in a few cases, fix) these images- it does not follow from this reasonable claim that we should be making it harder, to use your metaphor, to catch the mouse. Perhaps the sooner the mouse has been dealt with, the sooner people can get on with sorting out the elephant. The issue is that, in a lot of cases, NFCC enforcement is a lot easier than researching/accusing people of copyright infringement. J Milburn (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not so much that we should make it harder to catch the mouse, as that having endless energy-sapping arguments about mouse-catching is missing the point, and makes it less likely the elephant will ever be tackled (who'll have the energy and enthusiasm then, assuming anyone's even left standing?). Better systems to make mouse-catching easier - fine. But the occasional explicit and often implicit This Is Our Biggest Problem And It's Really Really Urgent To Tackle It Everywhere At Once lacks perspective, and leads to an unhelpful inability to compromise, slow down, and find adequate solutions. Rd232 talk 15:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Inactive code

Can you explain the purpose of this and the subsequent edits by you: [16] at {{inactive}}? This puts things in Category:Inactive Wikipedia WikiProjects but I don't understand why. You might review the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council/Inactive_projects#Categorization_of_inactive_projects and comment there. Thanks.--Doug.(talk contribs) 13:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Responded there. Rd232 public talk 17:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles

Over a month after the closure of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles, is User:Rd232/RfC for trial (draft phase) ready to be implemented? Cunard (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the trial data issues were entirely resolved. But I see the RFC is under way now anyway. Rd232 talk 23:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


Since I quoted you ...

I thought I should mention it. I quoted you here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A question

I don't mean to badger you too much, but I noticed your !vote and comment on the Today's Featured List feature. Given that you actually supported the original TFL proposal in February, what happened between then and now to cause you to change your mind? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(i) I dislike the term "badgering" in this context - if you express an opinion, you ought to be able to explain or justify it if necessary, and be open to changing your mind. So, no problem. (ii) I don't remember exactly the context from February (but I see my comment then mentioned Featured Sounds as a comparator). I support having a wider variety of content on the Main Page (including FL), but yesterday looking at available Featured Lists, I'm concerned that most are just not of enough interest to the average Main Page visitor to get the degree of exposure that TFA does, so I lean to having terse daily exposure as the best way to show "look, we do this too". Note also my remarks at the RFC about Picture of the Day. cheers, Rd232 talk 00:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Rarely helpful to make negative remarks about the motivation of people who disagree with you

I would ask that you consider redacting your statement: "Frankly, a lot of the opposition to this would seem WP:OWNery if exhibited on an article." Feel free to remove this comment after you have read it. Sharktopus talk 21:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review Wikipedia:Ownership of articles; it is not per se an issue of motivation. Ownership behaviour can be from the best of intentions. Rd232 talk 21:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Reviewing it, I rather liked this bit: "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement .... the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly." Sharktopus talk 23:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what your point is. That we shouldn't go around willynilly throwing around accusations of WP:OWN doesn't mean OWNership doesn't ever happen or that we're never allowed to talk about it. Besides, it was a passing remark of frustration with no obvious consequence, so let's not discuss it any further. Rd232 talk 23:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot request

Per your suggestion at WP:VPR#Ratings poll a distraction? I made a bot request at WP:BOTREQ#Bot for mirroring discussions from meta somewhere on en-wikipedia you might be interested in. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's possibly a bit premature for a bot request - the idea is still rather vague at this point. You might find people don't engage with the request or ask for more community discussion first (new VPR thread then, maybe raise on meta etc). It's a concept (bot mirroring across wikis, to make up for not having unified watchlists across wikis) that's been in the back of my mind for a long time though - eg to get user talk notifications from Commons pulled onto the equivalent user talk page here. Perhaps it's an idea whose time has come. Rd232 talk 23:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Lets see what happens. I agree that I perhaps should have waited with making that request. If the request is declined, I am open to start a new discussion at VPR. Should I remove the request or is there a procedure to place a bot request on hold? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not that formal. If necessary, just leave a note to explain that you're starting a new discussion at VPR. Rd232 talk 13:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I started a poll at WP:VPR#Bot for mirroring discussions from MediaWiki here at the english Wikipedia. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that was disappointing... my first participation request is for an RFC tagged in error. Oh well. Rd232 talk 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi Rd232, could you please tell me how I could request Block log annotation for my December block? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's no established procedure for this (I've just added a note to Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Recording_in_the_block_log). It's a bit trickier when the annotation doesn't flow naturally from a discussion. What do you have in mind? If you can propose some text which is a simple summary or link to relevant discussion(s), maybe I can do it for you. Otherwise, I guess it needs discussion (WP:AN if nowhere more relevant). Rd232 talk 16:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Going to AN is of course out of the question. I guess I will make a page with explanations, and give you a link to it, and BTW thanks for working on this. I also like to ask you, if this annotation will be linked to from my block log or how it works? --Mbz1 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Yees, I didn't think AN sounded appealing :). Make something brief (see remarks at Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Recording_in_the_block_log - it should not be a personal essay!) and I'll have a look. What I expect is something like "re block at time/date, please see subsequent discussion here which concluded something" type of thing. Due to technical limitations the annotation currently only appears at Special:Block (not at Special:Log). That means an admin attempting to block you would see the note, but it won't otherwise be visible (except of course by going to the /Blocklogannotation subpage directly). Rd232 talk 17:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure I would be able to make it really short, but I will do it, present it for your review, and hopefully we will be able to work something out. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, here it is. I am sorry it is so long. I am open for the suggestions how to make it shorter (how to make it longer I know myself :-)). I am also interested in your opinion (if you feel comfortable to provide one) on the merit of the initial block, changing it to be indefinite, removing my talk page access, and adding humiliating bans to my block log's record.
I also have one more question please. The thing is that I cannot forgive myself for agreeing on these bans as a condition for my unblock. Yes, I was extremely intimidated, yes I did not care about contributing to any of these boards, yes, I loved wikipedia, and wanted to be allowed to continue on it, but all these reasons were not good enough to cowardly agree on the stupid, unwarranted bans. I realized it much later, and, when I did I lost self-respect because I agreed on these bans.Rd232, the best resolution for this situation for me would be turning the clock back, removing the last record from my block log, and leaving me blocked indefinitely (I mean it) as I have never agreed on the humiliating unblock conditions. Do you believe is there a way it could be done? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK, I've drafted User:Mbz1/Blocklogannotation which provides explanation and links to your text for one of the points. As to the unblock conditions... well you lived with them and they've expired now, so I'd let it go. Rd232 talk 19:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I added my version below yours, and in a sec I will email you. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Privatisation?

With reference to my change you keep undoing on the Health and Social Care Bill article. The BMJ article does not say 'The NHS will be privatised'. Inevitable consquence doesn't mean 'privatisation'. If necessary I may seek a 3O on this issue, thank you. Christian1985 (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"privatisation is an inevitable consequence of many of the policies contained in the Health and Social Care Bill". If you need a 3rd opinion to interpret that statement for you, be my guest. You might also consider reading the BMJ article itself. Rd232 talk 18:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Revedel and mbz1 block log

You revdeleted the block log, despite the overwhelming consensus at several AN/I discussions that we are not going to open the door to every petty dispute that someone has for a reason that they were blocked? And relented to a "please block me?" plea, which is something that I believe is also frowned upon? You're one of the few admins around here who I respect the decisions of, but this one seems to go against what the larger community has decided. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You can't see the block log revdel entry, which was "Per Mbz1 request by email, on the basis of severely regretting agreement to unblock conditions; contact me by email for clarification if necessary", and I agreed to do it as part of Mbz1's departure. I'm not aware of self-block requests being frowned on, but I can assure you that the two actions together are based on exceptional circumstances and I'm satisfied that WP:IAR should apply to the extent that it needs to. I obviously cannot reveal details of private conversations, but even without the ability to do that, I hope you and others can appreciate that this finally draws a line under a long and difficult saga. Rd232 talk 12:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but mbz has been one of the worst advocacy pushers in the I-P topic area in the last few years. There are no exceptional circumstances...despite here numerous, screaming protests of being the victim, this editors is the aggressor in numerous, numerous disputes. She pestered Gwen Gale to death about this block log, harasses every admin who decides against her in her (numerous Arb Enforcement appearances). AGK tried a 1-second "clarification block" and that itself was revedeleted, as the wikipedia community decided that mbz was the one at fault, not anyone else. I don't like seeing people get away with bad behavior. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
She's gone now; and the exit enforced by an indef-block (at her request). I don't see how that's "getting away with" anything (it's not like she's escaping imminent sanction). If you wish to discuss this further, please email me. Rd232 talk 13:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree, and may bring this to AN to see if this would be endorsed. Mbz basically admin-shopped for months til she got the decision she was looking for. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
(a) what good can possibly come of that? (b) I already suggested to Gwen Gale that if she's not happy with it it would be best discussed offwiki, which basically means Arbcom (c) wait and see what she says. Honestly, I can totally understand your view if Mbz1 wasn't gone (wouldn't have done it if that weren't the case), but she is, and the likelihood of return is approximately zero (and if that happens, the history is still there). Rd232 talk 17:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


Confused.

Are you sure you wrote what you thought here? "Tarc's view was that the AFD was being used to target a conservative politician" - in fact, I'm fairly sure that Tarc's view is that the article, not the AfD, targeted Bachmann. I'll probably still disagree with both your closure and your summary (for which I see no consensus), but at least then we can argue the real meat ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

oops, thanks. As for consensus: consensus isn't going to emerge from that heated mess, at least not without much, much more argument. If the issue needs pursuing, it should be pursued elsewhere, with a note left at ANI. Rd232 talk 17:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sticky notes

Thanks for the suggestion for improving sticky notes! You may have noticed I worked it in to the article that advertises the idea a while ago. Ideas like that might just make the proposal more successful when I make a proposal at the idea lab.-Tesseract2(talk) 19:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

I've mentioned you in this ANI thread. I'm leaving you this notice in case you wish to comment there. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't do that again. Yes, it probably needed to be done, but it didn't need to be done by you. SirFozzie (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The circumstances were fairly unique. And if anything similar were to recur, I wouldn't do it again. Rd232 talk 01:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I have closed this case. ANI is for incidents, not general principles. A far as I am concerned though, In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. So there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Incidentally, I've never heard of you! So, hello. Rd232 talk 13:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

thecheesykid thread

The AN/I thread focused on you is far too crowded already for me to chime in there but I wanted to make it clear that I don't appreciate at all the "rebuttal to the close" you offered on the previous thread nor the subsequent implications that "incivility was rejected as an issue". User:Thecheesykid started an extremely misleading thread, and part of the reason I closed it so quickly (as I told him myself on his talk page) was that I anticipated a pile-up of editors boomeranging against him once they noticed that the target of his thread was not the person who turned the conversation incivil. Sure enough, there was a pile-on against both User:Thecheesykid and User:Boycool42 even after I closed it. I had to close it twice, actually. In the future, if you have concerns with the way I close a thread, try discussing it here first. 28bytes (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"extremely misleading thread" ... "the target of his thread was not the person who turned the conversation incivil." - not really. the conversation thecheesykid was responding to (on Ruby2010's talkpage) was turned incivil by Malleus, Thecheesykid hadn't posted on Malleus' talkpage in the 3 months prior (that's as far as I checked), so I'm gonna go out on a limb and say he didn't see Boycool42's "dick" comment before addressing Malleus about his remark on Ruby2010's talkpage. From there, it doesn't matter who started it, the issue is Malleus's response, which seems to have been negative enough to prompt the ANI thread. From there, the community response wasn't very helpful, and made it appear that thecheesykid was at fault, when at worst it was Malleus+another. I don't know how much Tarc's remark "You and the other guy got what you deserved, honestly" (which no-one, including the closer, disputed) and the close implying thecheeskykid was at fault figured in his retirement decision, but I suspect it was in there somewhere. And the totality of it certainly reinforces the view of many that civility enforcement (with a view to maintaining a collegial environment) is a bad joke. As for my additional closing remarks... it seemed pointless to discuss it with you after he'd retired, so I just left a clarificatory note and some general remarks. Rd232 talk 09:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Let me approach this a little differently. I would appreciate it if, rather than piggybacking onto another admin's closing remarks with comments intended to undermine (or "clarify", if you prefer) what the closer said, you spoke with them directly first. I'm really quite approachable. In this case I would have absolutely been willing to reword my comments to make it clear that the filing party was not the one making the "dick" comments. You are an admin. You surely understand that closing threads is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't proposition. I tried to avoid a disheartening pile-on against User:Thecheesykid by closing the thread, and in my haste I did not word the closing comments optimally. Obviously I didn't succeed at preventing the pile-on. Of course, if I had stayed out of the thread entirely and let it run indefinitely, the pile-on would have still happened – with almost certainly a lot more piling on, and Thecheesykid might very well have retired from that. So the lesson seems to be, stay out of closing threads unless you want another admin to go around implying your close caused an editor to leave the project. Do you intend to continue posting in other threads that my close helped prompt an editor to retire? 28bytes (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
"You surely understand that closing threads is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't proposition." Fuck yes. "Do you intend to continue posting in other threads that my close helped prompt an editor to retire?" - no, I only mentioned it because it was relevant background, probably contributing to a particular decision (and I didn't exactly say that). Sorry I didn't approach you, but it seemed pointless to make a fuss about it, I just wanted to set the record straight. If you like, you can edit the archived page to remove my comment and amend yours, to produce whatever result there would have been if I had approached you. Rd232 talk 13:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I won't be editing the archives, but thank you for the offer. There are certainly editors whose retirement would benefit the project, but Thecheesykid was not one of them, and I'm glad to know that I won't have to see the implication that I helped cause it popping up in other threads, so thank you for that assurance as well. 28bytes (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Unblockself permission

Rd232, thank you for closing Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Unblockself permission. Best, Cunard (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Finding 3.1 of MickMacNee

I'm not sure if you have noticed, but please be aware that a new finding of fact (3.1) has been proposed at the MMN proposed decision case. The finding concerns your recent block of MickMacNee. Regards, AGK [] 16:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand, thanks for the note. On the other hand, as case clerk, I'd kind of expect you to notice Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Proposed_decision#FoF_3.1, a section started by... me. Rd232 talk 16:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. And no, because I don't habitually read the case talk pages when I'm on wikibreak (which in turn, I'd expect you to notice while making a suggestion of that nature). I'm also only one of two clerks assigned to the case. You're aware, though, so that's settled things. AGK [] 20:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Well I wouldn't see you're on wikibreak unless I went to your talk page, would I? And I had no reason to. But, whatever. I'm just generally frustrated with the handling of this entire case, which has been spectacularly hands off until finally it's over, and then... oh, wait, there is an Arbcom. Rd232 talk 20:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
If you mean that the clerks' handling of the case has been hands-off, then I would point to our earlier action in relation to evidence length, and to our moderation of discussions throughout the case. If you mean that the committee's handling has been hands-off, then I understand your frustration, but wonder why you would direct it at me (even if I am somewhat used to it by now). Regards, AGK [] 21:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Well isn't that one of the messenger's jobs, to get shot at? ;) Wasn't really directed at you, though, I haven't forgotten that you tried to handle the evidence length issue. Rd232 talk 22:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess so :). I didn't say it, but that last question was intended to be rhetorical, because, if you need to vent, I'd rather you do at me than at a newbie or a fellow party :P. Regards, AGK [] 22:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)