This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
Jennavecia, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. Thanks in particular for commenting on my response to Q7. By the way, do you recall the time we had an exchange about guidelines for including music awards? I did not get very far with that. :( Anyway, if ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 16:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash ( talk) 20:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Thanks for your offer of a place to vent free from over-sensitive flowers. I'm probably a lost cause though; I just looked through the postings that caused the trouble and I was laughing out loud, and I still am. I thought they were pretty damn clever, although I know that probably just reinforces your view that I'm a dick. Still, I just wanted to say thanks. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I can work on something else for a while. NawlinWiki ( talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been biting my tongue over a certain current RfA that is gathering opposes because the candidate has insufficient experience of "admin duties". The usual crap gets trotted out, like come back in three months after you've bored yourself rigid at XfD and spent some time arguing the toss with the low-life that inhabits WT:RFA, AN, AN/I and the other dark corners of wikipedia. What I find so irritating about all of that trite cant is its blinding inconsistency. What experience can anyone have had with blocking, without having the blocking tool? What experience has a vandal fighter in dealing with content disputes? How can anyone one who isn't a good solid contributor to the encyclopedia be able to understand when, how, and why to deal with page protections and quarrelling editors? Nobody can have had admin experience without being an administrator, and to suggest otherwise is gold star level stupidity.
There, I feel better now. :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 16:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I want to answer one single question, since no one has yet to do so: What experience can anyone have had with blocking, without having the blocking tool? Obviously you cannot. But you can demonstrate said knowledge of the tools without having used them. This can be accomplished by simply watching the normal functions from various pages defined as admin related areas. This is not a difficult task. And the same goes for protecting as well. I failed to demonstrate this at my last two rfas. Something so easy should never be overlooked (you can have knowledge of the tools, without having ever used them; learning is the precursor to the tools, and the tools are not de facto installation of knowledge). Syn ergy 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Look, I don't think it'll help anything to pursue the debate on the ANI thread but I think I understand the source of our disagreement. You seem to be looking strictly at what is written at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2. But if you look at the ANI thread that resulted in this and if you check the extra diffs I provided from BC's talk page, there is really an extended discussion about semi-automated edits and edits that appear to be automated. There's a lot BC can do for the project other than test Twinkle and he knows full well that these runs of 40 edits a minute will generate trouble. If you also look at the recent history of his talk page, his attitude is so baffling: I have somehow become an admin with "an obvious COI", Friday has become a troll, he's targeted because of his work on NFCC. I just don't get him I guess. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 18:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
That was nice; we'll see how it goes :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you still following the Food service task force? -- Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot ( talk) 06:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
From the editor: Help wanted | ||
WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 06:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I confess that I don't understand much of what has gone on, mostly because so much of it appears to have happened off-Wiki in private or semi-private settings. Nonetheless, if you're concerned about your family's privacy then it appears that log sharing is apparently only part of the problem. If you need any help on-wiki, let me know. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Lara / Jenna. I thought I should let you know about this because you might get dragged into it. Evolutionary history of life, which you passed as GA, has content issues - see Talk:Evolutionary history of life#Structure and questions. I've posted about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology#Evolutionary history of life 2, Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Evolutionary history of life and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Holes in GA .2F FA review process for .22academic.22 or .22technical.22 subjects.
I've tried to make it clear in those posts that this situation is not at all your fault. IMO WP needs to improve its review process for "academic" or "technical" subjects, preferably at the same time reducing the emphasis on WP:minutiae to avoid increasing the total burden on editors and reviewers. I hope you won't get any unpleasant fall-out from this, but it's only fair to let you know about it. Best wishes -- Philcha ( talk) 10:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ryan, CBM, Jennavecia (same message on all three talk pages). Seems like the ANI thread has gone stale although this idea of small-committee discussion has received pretty solid support. Look, we're never going to have 30 people agreeing on who should be working on this so I'd suggest you three take a shot at it. Am I dumping this thankless task on you guys? I sure am. I don't mind helping out but BC has gotten this idea that I'm out to get him so that might just increase drama. I know Jennavecia has expressed concern that she might be viewed as a BC cheerleader but you're all reasonable people and, as Jennnavecia put it, I think you all "understand the grievances of most editors who want to see Beta banned and at the same time, find great value in his contributions". CBM has bot experience, Ryan has MedCom experience, you're all admins, you've all been around and you've all followed the various BC ANI threads and ArbCom cases enough to understand the situation. I expect that both ends on the BC-love spectrum will spit at whatever compromise you come up with but at this stage it'll have to do and cooler-heads can probably prevail... Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your notes.
I sincerely want to resolve this. Formatting aside (and I want to make the formatting more appropriate; I have removed all "artist" references that do not have wikipedia refs), I am especially concerned about the conflict of interest charges.
Citing oneself I cited myself once in the entire article as a producer in a single series. As listed, I was one of over 30 directors of the facility, producing one of dozens of long-running series, over the theatre's roughly 14 year run. As per the COI, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest....Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged."
Financial I am neither "receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations" nor do I "expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia."
Legal antagonists I am not "involved in a court case, or close to [any] litigants."
Self-promotion Whereas I no longer have an official affiliation with the organization, I am in no way engaging in "self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates."
Autobiography Nothing in this article is autobiographical, and with one exception, I am not mentioned.
Close relationships I have no "high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization."
If you take serious issue with a tongue-in-cheek comment about a "viscous fluid," then just edit that, fine. This latest revision was absolutely not a reverted previous version, and this simply shows that you did not do due diligence in your review. If you would have reviewed more carefully, you would realize I was one of over 30 members, and my formal relationship ended in 2002.Methinks you dost protest too much. Please carefully consider your future editorial suggestions in light of this, before you threaten "to issue... a short block if you continue to edit in this manner." I could easily escalate this issue in the same manner, but I believe it is in the interests of the Wikipedia community to some to a calm, mutual balance for all parties.
As per Wikipedia:Administrators under Grievances by users ("Administrator abuse"): "If a user thinks an administrator has acted improperly against them or another editor, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can take further action (see Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution). For more possibilities, see Requests for comment/User conduct: Use of administrator privileges and Administrators' noticeboard: Incidents"
I hereby appeal to you that we "try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner" before this becomes a more formal conflict. Justindavila (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you point out exactly where I have a conflict of interest? Thanks.
Thx for your edits. -- Justindavila ( talk) 20:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
per your post here Majorly said: "No wonder you can't get any further than waiting and minimum wage jobs in supermarkets." You responded: "and the inaccuracies, last time I checked, the United States Air Force wasn't a supermarket)" My question: So it's true that the Air Force pays minimum wage? --- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
341s, zOMG, that number haunts me. I had the worst experience ever when I had three of my four 341s taken from me in one incident. OMG. I knew for sure I was going to wash back, and in a band flight, that was two weeks! Luckily, they just scared the shit out of me and that was that. Talk about stress. Jennavecia (Talk) 04:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
After searching for 341, I didn't find an article. Would someone puhlease create one so I know what is going on here! :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Am i correct in thinking you used to be an adopter. If this is so can you give me a link to your adoption page? I would really appreciate it as i am now an adopter myself. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 00:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
It's obvious the RfC isn't going anywhere and that consensus has been reached... I think it's time to go the next step.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As a member of WikiProject Discographies, I thought you might be interested to participate in the collaboration. Hpfan9374 ( talk) 12:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
Jennavecia, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. Thanks in particular for commenting on my response to Q7. By the way, do you recall the time we had an exchange about guidelines for including music awards? I did not get very far with that. :( Anyway, if ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 16:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash ( talk) 20:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Thanks for your offer of a place to vent free from over-sensitive flowers. I'm probably a lost cause though; I just looked through the postings that caused the trouble and I was laughing out loud, and I still am. I thought they were pretty damn clever, although I know that probably just reinforces your view that I'm a dick. Still, I just wanted to say thanks. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I can work on something else for a while. NawlinWiki ( talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been biting my tongue over a certain current RfA that is gathering opposes because the candidate has insufficient experience of "admin duties". The usual crap gets trotted out, like come back in three months after you've bored yourself rigid at XfD and spent some time arguing the toss with the low-life that inhabits WT:RFA, AN, AN/I and the other dark corners of wikipedia. What I find so irritating about all of that trite cant is its blinding inconsistency. What experience can anyone have had with blocking, without having the blocking tool? What experience has a vandal fighter in dealing with content disputes? How can anyone one who isn't a good solid contributor to the encyclopedia be able to understand when, how, and why to deal with page protections and quarrelling editors? Nobody can have had admin experience without being an administrator, and to suggest otherwise is gold star level stupidity.
There, I feel better now. :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 16:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I want to answer one single question, since no one has yet to do so: What experience can anyone have had with blocking, without having the blocking tool? Obviously you cannot. But you can demonstrate said knowledge of the tools without having used them. This can be accomplished by simply watching the normal functions from various pages defined as admin related areas. This is not a difficult task. And the same goes for protecting as well. I failed to demonstrate this at my last two rfas. Something so easy should never be overlooked (you can have knowledge of the tools, without having ever used them; learning is the precursor to the tools, and the tools are not de facto installation of knowledge). Syn ergy 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Look, I don't think it'll help anything to pursue the debate on the ANI thread but I think I understand the source of our disagreement. You seem to be looking strictly at what is written at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2. But if you look at the ANI thread that resulted in this and if you check the extra diffs I provided from BC's talk page, there is really an extended discussion about semi-automated edits and edits that appear to be automated. There's a lot BC can do for the project other than test Twinkle and he knows full well that these runs of 40 edits a minute will generate trouble. If you also look at the recent history of his talk page, his attitude is so baffling: I have somehow become an admin with "an obvious COI", Friday has become a troll, he's targeted because of his work on NFCC. I just don't get him I guess. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 18:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
That was nice; we'll see how it goes :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you still following the Food service task force? -- Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot ( talk) 06:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
From the editor: Help wanted | ||
WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 06:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I confess that I don't understand much of what has gone on, mostly because so much of it appears to have happened off-Wiki in private or semi-private settings. Nonetheless, if you're concerned about your family's privacy then it appears that log sharing is apparently only part of the problem. If you need any help on-wiki, let me know. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Lara / Jenna. I thought I should let you know about this because you might get dragged into it. Evolutionary history of life, which you passed as GA, has content issues - see Talk:Evolutionary history of life#Structure and questions. I've posted about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology#Evolutionary history of life 2, Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Evolutionary history of life and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Holes in GA .2F FA review process for .22academic.22 or .22technical.22 subjects.
I've tried to make it clear in those posts that this situation is not at all your fault. IMO WP needs to improve its review process for "academic" or "technical" subjects, preferably at the same time reducing the emphasis on WP:minutiae to avoid increasing the total burden on editors and reviewers. I hope you won't get any unpleasant fall-out from this, but it's only fair to let you know about it. Best wishes -- Philcha ( talk) 10:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ryan, CBM, Jennavecia (same message on all three talk pages). Seems like the ANI thread has gone stale although this idea of small-committee discussion has received pretty solid support. Look, we're never going to have 30 people agreeing on who should be working on this so I'd suggest you three take a shot at it. Am I dumping this thankless task on you guys? I sure am. I don't mind helping out but BC has gotten this idea that I'm out to get him so that might just increase drama. I know Jennavecia has expressed concern that she might be viewed as a BC cheerleader but you're all reasonable people and, as Jennnavecia put it, I think you all "understand the grievances of most editors who want to see Beta banned and at the same time, find great value in his contributions". CBM has bot experience, Ryan has MedCom experience, you're all admins, you've all been around and you've all followed the various BC ANI threads and ArbCom cases enough to understand the situation. I expect that both ends on the BC-love spectrum will spit at whatever compromise you come up with but at this stage it'll have to do and cooler-heads can probably prevail... Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your notes.
I sincerely want to resolve this. Formatting aside (and I want to make the formatting more appropriate; I have removed all "artist" references that do not have wikipedia refs), I am especially concerned about the conflict of interest charges.
Citing oneself I cited myself once in the entire article as a producer in a single series. As listed, I was one of over 30 directors of the facility, producing one of dozens of long-running series, over the theatre's roughly 14 year run. As per the COI, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest....Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged."
Financial I am neither "receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations" nor do I "expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia."
Legal antagonists I am not "involved in a court case, or close to [any] litigants."
Self-promotion Whereas I no longer have an official affiliation with the organization, I am in no way engaging in "self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates."
Autobiography Nothing in this article is autobiographical, and with one exception, I am not mentioned.
Close relationships I have no "high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization."
If you take serious issue with a tongue-in-cheek comment about a "viscous fluid," then just edit that, fine. This latest revision was absolutely not a reverted previous version, and this simply shows that you did not do due diligence in your review. If you would have reviewed more carefully, you would realize I was one of over 30 members, and my formal relationship ended in 2002.Methinks you dost protest too much. Please carefully consider your future editorial suggestions in light of this, before you threaten "to issue... a short block if you continue to edit in this manner." I could easily escalate this issue in the same manner, but I believe it is in the interests of the Wikipedia community to some to a calm, mutual balance for all parties.
As per Wikipedia:Administrators under Grievances by users ("Administrator abuse"): "If a user thinks an administrator has acted improperly against them or another editor, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can take further action (see Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution). For more possibilities, see Requests for comment/User conduct: Use of administrator privileges and Administrators' noticeboard: Incidents"
I hereby appeal to you that we "try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner" before this becomes a more formal conflict. Justindavila (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you point out exactly where I have a conflict of interest? Thanks.
Thx for your edits. -- Justindavila ( talk) 20:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
per your post here Majorly said: "No wonder you can't get any further than waiting and minimum wage jobs in supermarkets." You responded: "and the inaccuracies, last time I checked, the United States Air Force wasn't a supermarket)" My question: So it's true that the Air Force pays minimum wage? --- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
341s, zOMG, that number haunts me. I had the worst experience ever when I had three of my four 341s taken from me in one incident. OMG. I knew for sure I was going to wash back, and in a band flight, that was two weeks! Luckily, they just scared the shit out of me and that was that. Talk about stress. Jennavecia (Talk) 04:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
After searching for 341, I didn't find an article. Would someone puhlease create one so I know what is going on here! :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Am i correct in thinking you used to be an adopter. If this is so can you give me a link to your adoption page? I would really appreciate it as i am now an adopter myself. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 00:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
It's obvious the RfC isn't going anywhere and that consensus has been reached... I think it's time to go the next step.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As a member of WikiProject Discographies, I thought you might be interested to participate in the collaboration. Hpfan9374 ( talk) 12:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)