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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
User:Sportsguy17/Happy Holidays 2013
Trick or Treat! Happy
Halloween Worm That Turned! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go
trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween!
—
dain
omite 15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks. |
Little user not know if be precedent for admonishment of admin by motion? Haha. Surely many times! See how even Bishzilla herself admonished by motion for (very good) admin action! [1] ([Tolerantly:] Show silliness of little 2009 committee.) Little Worm please add note to comment here, dispel ignorance! bishzilla ROARR!! 17:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC).
Dave, a user has been pestering the life out of me (in good faith) on my tp and by email. Where he is headed iis clear, and I've tried to answer as friendly as possible but I'm running out of ideas, and time to devote to this. Maybe you can help. See threads here, here, and here. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I would love to be adopted! If interested as much as I am, please visit my talk page and let me know! Here2HelpWiki 3-to-talk 18:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not clear to me. Your opinion? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 10:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Dave, do you have a presence over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist or does anyone else watching here? I'm stuck in the backlog and have been for almost a month. I'd appreciate any help possible with my request. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 11:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
What can be done about the uncivil behaviour of Eric Corbett? See Talk:Wells Cathedral#Restrictive which. I would like to take this further if I could. There should be no room on Wikipedia for his awful behaviour. Particularly this comment, which I consider to be baiting: "My only difficulty is with your ignorance". I would appreciate your help very much. Inglok ( talk) 01:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Three weeks have passed. Any plans to do anything with User:Worm That Turned/Eric Corbett any time soon? Fram ( talk) 13:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There is also an issue when Anglicanus reacts so badly to my increasing pressure on him to withdraw the "patronising git" comment that he starts to talk about getting me removed as an admin, yet being completely intransigent when I try to reach out to reach a compromise with him. He has bluntly refused to budge one bit, which shows an unwillingness to negotiate and reach a mutually acceptable compromise (though I do not think I can change my opinion about his "patronising git" comment.) You can read it for yourself on his talk page, and his response led me to believe that walking away was the best solution at this point. DDStretch (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
I saw your question to Richwales today and wanted to thank you for the work you do despite all that has happened to you. I know what it feels like and feel so sad that you and probably others have been subjected to this kind of treatment. Best wishes. olive ( talk) 16:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC) |
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis
Bringing a constructive idea out of the former confusion, maybe arbs who can get elected intra-term actually should be able to have two arbitratorships running concurrently, with each arbitratorship allowed one vote in arbcom decisions? Continuing confidence of electorate = extra power. Just like Julius Caesar, who ... -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a serious backlog of about 20K individual IPs that are blocked without expiration. I have broken the IPs into groups of 5000: m:User:とある白い猫/English Wikipedia open proxy candidates. So they are effectively blocked until time ends. This creates considerable potential collateral damage as the owners of IPs tend to be not very consistent. Some of these IPs are on dynamic ranges which results in arbitrary blocks of good users. Vast majority of the blocks go back years all the way to 2004 - some were preemptively blocked. Nowadays even open proxies normally do not get indefinite blocks.
The problem is that no single admin wants to review this many IPs and very few have the technical capability to review. Such a technical review would be non-trivial for individual IPs which in my humble opinion would be a complete waste of time. I feel ArbCom could step in and provide criteria for bulk action. A bulk unblock of all indefinite blocks (with exceptions if the specific single IP unblocks are contested) before - say - 2010 would be a good start.
Open proxies tend to be better handled at meta as open proxies are a global problem for all wikis.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Important article improvement milestone - nice to see this essential article getting the recognition it deserves! -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC) |
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 16:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey! If you've got a good memory, you'll remember that about a year and a half ago, you participated in the Bacon WikiCup 2012. Unfortunately I became inactive before I could give out the awards, which I apologize for. It's been forever since I disappeared from Wikipedia, but I decided to check back in out of nostalgia. I know I'm really pushing it with "better late than never", but here it is: your very-long-overdue medal. Cheers, ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 23:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
[[
Image:Bacon WikiCup 2012 Medal.svg|120px]] |
Bacon WikiCup 2012 - Participant Medal | |
Due to your work in expanding bacon-related content during the Bacon WikiCup 2012, you have been awarded the Bacon WikiCup 2012 Particpant Medal. You received a final score of 204, earning yourself second place. Congratulations, and thank you for your great work! ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 23:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC) |
Greetings, Mr. Craven,
I messaged you apprx. 5 months ago re: adoption and at the time you weren't adopting even though you had listed on the page that you might have time for adoption - at least I believe that I am remembering this correctly! I messaged you and, at most, possibly one other person about adoption, but I do believe that you were the one person that I messaged about this opportunity. I've read that you are moving into a lower stage of Wikipedia work, but, I would like to know if you might possibly be able to take on a lower activity adoptee who also does their own research on how to enter edits, etc on Wikipedia before asking for help. Is there a chance that you might consider taking on an, at this time, low maintenance adoptee?
Also, regardless of the adoptee question, I wanted to ask you a question, quick question, about an edit I made to the "Mink Stole" page - I believe my second edit, the citation, was done correctly but, as you will clearly see, I added a film for 1971, "Is There Sex After Death" and I followed the formatting of the other films in that decade and had a big blunder - the list ended up outside of the sectioned box! It is really very obvious, is in the filmography section of her page and the problem addition is on the far right side - listed in the early 1970's section - film is a 1971 film. I am not even sure of how to flag the page so that somebody can assist me with the correction of the formatting. All of the information is there and when in edit mode it even appears correctly in the list of her film history. If you have a moment and can check on it, I would really appreciate it, Mr. Craven. If you do drop in and correct it, could you please, in brief, explain why the film listing didn't appear in the row once I chose to "Save" the edit - I would really appreciate it.
I hope that all is well with you in England, Loren M. Cooley (lmc33) Detroit, Michigan - USA 20:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmc33 ( talk • contribs)
ps - Mr. Craven, I attempted to reply to your message to me from 5 mos. ago, and this is message to you placed here, "User Talk", I'm not sure if this is correct! I am so sorry if it is not and hoping that you might show me how to properly reply to messages received and how to message a user correctly when initiating the contact. Thank you, again, for your response and assistance. lmc33 20:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmc33 ( talk • contribs)
Dave -- Good day, I tweaked your post to add a header and started a section to the talk page. Apologies if I overstepped my bounds. I also seconded the nomination as I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of that Editor. Lettik ( talk) 14:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Best wishes | |
for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC) |
JianhuiMobile
talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
JianhuiMobile talk 07:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
—
cyberpower Online
Merry Christmas is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— cyberpower Online Merry Christmas 22:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)
~
TheGeneralUser
(talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Dave, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Worm That Turned, Happy New Year! I am not asking to be unblocked. I am asking that my block be replaced with a global lock, and my Mbz1 user pages were left undeleted. Global lock is possible by an editor request. Please see here. The thing is that vanishing my account probably will not work for me. It was tried on Commons, and it just did not work because of the images.
Also could you please undelete all pages in my user space deleted by Jehochman. I have never asked him to delete my user pages.
I am not asking to be allowed to edit Wikipedia, and I am not interested in editing Wikipedia. The only thing I am asking for it is just a little bit of understanding. Is this so much to ask for?
Thanks. Mbz1 50.150.100.112 ( talk) 14:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia wants me to leave. I want to leave Wikipedia even more.
Blocks are not to punish.
In my particular situation it is.
So here's a proposed solution. I will email my password to you. You will login to my account, change my password, remove my email address.
I am leaving wikipedia and everybody is happy.
If I am back, the block is reinstated and banned user template is added to my user page.
I see no reason to refuse me in such simple and fair for everybody involved solution other than to punish me.
Do you see any other reason that could prevent the committee to treat a named person with dignity and understanding? 50.150.100.112 ( talk) 15:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Worm that turned, you advised me above to appeal the block to the arbcom. I am not interested in editing Wikipedia, but I'd like to appeal my block and to leave your site in peace. I am requesting that appeal to be in an open here on Wikipedia on my own talk page, an appeal, in which I am allowed to participate. I'd be very civil, and everybody would be allowed to comment. I am only asking of one thing: "every comment that accusing me of harassment (I am banned for harassment) should have at least one on-wiki diff". I would accept the decision of this open appeal. And listen, I am not looking for attention, I am looking for transparency. I am not looking for drama, I am looking for the truth to come out, and I am requesting this open appeal not only for myself, but also for others in a similar situation, and for Wikipedia too because nobody should be ever treated as I am. Regards. 24.6.208.112 ( talk) 15:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
—
cyberpower Online
Happy 2014 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— cyberpower Online Happy 2014 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Jianhui67
talk★
contribs — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Jianhui67 talk★ contribs 09:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Worm That Turned! I am not sure if you remember me, but you adopted me in February, 2011. You archived my page because I was inactive. However, I would like to graduate. Is this possible with your schedule? Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelo Michael ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I opened a discussion about whether or not to log alerts/notifications on the here. I'd be interested in hearing your views. Roger Davies talk 19:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I can digest the archives only in small quantities, so only now came across your precious comment which said it better than my own. Thank you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dave, I've answered the leftover questions which were due for sometime. You can have a look at them, and then we can proceed forward. Thanks. ~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
That is intended to be a vote to close, right? [3] -- Rs chen 7754 08:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Your vote would be appreciated on the Conduct unbecoming FOF to enable us to close the case. Roger Davies talk 10:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
For the oppose [4]. You're probably wikisaavy enough to get it's not a personal thing, I'd oppose any sitting arb from taking on that role. (Actually it's your own fault for posting on 28bytes page, 'cause I have that, not Rfb, watchlisted). NE Ent 00:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the topic of the unspeakable little things, please tell me one occasion in 2014 where you found my discussion unhelpful, - please not counting where I spoke for Andy, because that will stop once he is free again to design "his" articles as he likes them. Repeating: I am not passionate about the things (not even all my own articles have one), but about people and fairness. I can't say so in the clarification, because I exhausted my permitted number of comments in a discussion by pointing out what I really thought was productive collaboration of editors on "different sides" ;) I would like to see more of that. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Since that case though, half the time I've come across Gerda is when she's been re-hashing the case. The important thing about arbitration is the finality of it and that is why Risker and Brad (I believe) suggested she move on. Sometimes a decision needs to be made and it needs to be accepted once it is made.
My express hope is that Gerda will move away from infobox debates and re-focus on the things she is not only good at, she's one of the best at. WormTT( talk) 11:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I have closed your RfB as successful and you are now a bureaucrat. Probably the only context in which that isn't an insult... WJBscribe (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Worm That Turned,
I've left the message below the DS Review page [5], and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen ( talk) 22:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.
Dave, after the piles of congrats to which I added, can we get to work? You have limited time, I have limited time, I am a DYK person and suggest simple questions and answers.
Did you know
Interrupting, how about getting to know Andy? See
article,
European Parliament project and
NPR appearance. You will see immediately what's missing in the article. Help,
All Things Considered? --
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 15:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Well done on your RFB, oh most hatted of Wikipedians! Yunshui 雲 水 15:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Could you make me admin? I learn so much from Wikipedia and I would love to be an admin. Please grant me permission
THANK YOU!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDraggon ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't you think that the user should be unblocked and allowed to participate in that RFC? The danger he damages Wikipedia is none, and you know that. Please do the right thing. Let Colton Cosmic to participate. 69.181.40.211 ( talk) 17:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I just logged in an incident on ANI. Check this [6]. I feel that the action by the admin in discussion was harsh, sudden and one sided. Whilst I wait for the discussion on ANI to progress, I am placing a request to you if you can review this independently and give me your feedback. Cheers AKS
I've placed the comment below on Roger Davies' Talk page under the heading 'Correction to collapsed discussion' and am copying it here because the point is obviously one of vital concern to all arbitrators. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Roger,
Could you please correct this comment you made at [7]:
This is your fourth edit since you were asked to back off yesterday. Whatever benefit there might have been in your contributions has been lost in the - to put it mildly - freeranging nature and inquisitorial tone of your comments. You have singlehandedly provided about half the commentary over the last month, sometimes derailing discussions, stopping others in their tracks, and contributing greatly to bloat. Please now step right back.
Your statement is inaccurate. I made only a single comment after I was told my comments were unwelcome by AGK yesterday, and that comment was made in reply to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Can another editor no longer ask me a question, and receive a reply? The four 'edits' were merely 'fixes' to that single comment, as is obvious from the edit history. Please correct that inaccuracy by removing your statement which implies that I made four separate comments after being told my comments were unwelcome, and which fails to recognize the fact that I was replying to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Your statements that I have 'derailed discussions' or 'stopped others in their tracks' are also both inaccurate. I have never done that, nor have you provided an example of either. I have merely raised questions, and in almost every single case an administrator, either you, AGK, or Salvio has abruptly shut down any discussion of the questions I have raised. The questions I've raised are valid ones. Perhaps they seem 'inquisitorial' to you and to other administrators because you are committed to discretionary sanctions and you cannot look at them from the point of view of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who find DS strange, unjust, and harmful to the project.
Also your own comments which you later added to that section directly contradict the information provided to me by Robert McClenon, so why has Salvio been permitted to collapse the discussion with the comment 'Asked and answered' when the question obviously hasn't been answered? You state unequivocally earlier in the discussion that I was the only one ('one notable exception') who didn't understand the difference between the powers exercised by administrators in DS and in non-DS situations, and Salvio rudely told me that my question had been answered before, and that I was exhibiting 'supine ignorance'. The discussion now shows I was clearly not the only one who didn't understand the difference, since your later comment completely contradicts the explanation of the difference given by Robert McClenon. It is not healthy for Wikipedia when even an experienced editor like Robert McClenon obviously doesn't understand the difference between the powers, and when you have to tell Robert that his explanation is completely wrong, and when no Wikipedia editor can find anywhere on Wikipedia a clear difference and distinction between the powers. The only way to fix this is to set out on the DS project page a clear explanation of the difference between the powers of arbitrators, the powers of administrators in DS situations, and the power of administrators in non-DS situations. At present the differences are completely blurred, and no Wikipedia editor has access to a clear statement of what an administrator is actually authorized to do in DS situations as opposed to non-DS situations, or how the powers of administrators differ from those of arbitrators. Robert McClenon stated that administrators in DS-sitations have been given 'arbitrator-like powers'. By what authority has this happened, since administrators were not elected to be arbitrators? This blurring of powers, the refusal to clearly set out for the benefit of all Wikipedia editors the differences between the powers exercised by arbitrators, administrators in DS situations and administrators in non-DS situations, and the handing over of arbitrators' powers to administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not healthy for Wikipedia, nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above).
Are you sure you want to use the word "fun" in regards to the case that involves the comments made about a young man who is no longer with us? 69.181.193.108 ( talk) 16:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
(Ec)*Everybody, mentally ill and mentally healthy, should be treated with more compassion, more kindness and more understanding. Eric got upset about somebody using that template at their talk page, but honestly Eric's retirements is the same thing. His retirements is his way to request for assistance and understanding, and as every human being he should be given some.
Hi,
I noticed you taking over the block on User:Arri at Suburban Express on behalf of Arbcom. Note that I had also blocked two declared alternate accounts of the same person, User:Arri416 and User:Suburban Express President as part of the same administrative action. I don't know whether taking those over would amount to anything more than bureaucratic nitpicking, but it's probably best if you're aware of these. I'll also note that I blocked the second one 2 months later after another user drew my attention to it, and there were no shenanigans involved with that particular account in the meantime. Thanks, MLauba ( Talk) 14:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
You should know that I used the pie for a special award for a brave editor, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editor review#RfC: Should we mark WP:ER as historical?. As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editor review (2nd nomination) last year, you may be interested in the current RfC discussing closing and marking ER as historical. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 02:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you really think it was wise to unblock him? He started trolling me immediately after your misguided goodwill gesture. See ANI. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 18:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I have not been following the Toddst1 drama, but he was right about this socking issue. Just ask user User:Ymblanter, who was the main target of that IP socking/trolling. In your (ArbCom's) misguided attempt to punish Toddst1, you have enabled the return of a much worse editor (Holdek). Someone not using his real name ( talk)
Have you (ArbCom) formally decided that Holdek was not IP socking? Someone not using his real name ( talk) 18:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
On 3 March 2014, Schon gewusst? was updated with a fact from the translation of the article Stargazy pie, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was: Wenn aus einer Backform Fische Richtung Himmel gucken, könnte es sich um Stargazy Pie handeln. (When fish gaze from a form to heaven it might be Stargazy Pie.) You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( quick check). |
Guten Appetit, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dave! Not sure if you remember me from the Training the Trainers event last year? I'm currently the Wikipedian in Residence at York Museums Trust and we're having an edit-a-thon on March 16th. It'd be great to have you along! There's a broad spectrum of topics inspired by York's luminaries and the curators will be bringing some fun stuff to show and tell. Hope to see you there! PatHadley ( talk) 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)
The motion reads as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drink, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaerobic ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Clarification request: Toddst1/Holdek has been closed and archived. An archived copy of the of the request can be seen here. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang ( talk) 07:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if on the Spanish Wikipedia. If I am allowed to make an article about a Spanish Christian church, in Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDraggon ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!
It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:
Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi WormTT,
I understand you are not taking any adoptees ATM but I would love an adopter suggestion. Maybe a former student? etc?
Thank you, Forrest ForrestLyle ( talk) 21:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dave - thought I'd swing by and say hello after your message, since we haven't been in touch for a while. You got me thinking - given the serious rate of adopter attrition (have you taken a look at the list of adopters recently? Not a lot of green headers there...), do you think it would be a worthwhile exercise to temporarily shut up shop on the existing adoption program, and reopen it as part of the Reimagining Mentorship project when that eventually goes live? I'm - very casually - considering whether or not to open an RFC on the subject. Yunshui 雲 水 07:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, gotta admit it, "I'm impressed". Thanks.
Pdfpdf (
talk) 17:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW: Are "Walking on water" and "Turning water into wine" also tools you keep up your sleeve?
How do you like it?— cyberpower ChatOnline 14:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that in order to make my request I had to remind arbitrators of what happened first. How could I make a point without explaining the facts? And I believe there is a difference between users having to avoid each other and clear, blatant censorship. The arbitration case was not about three users behavior when interacting among themselves, but about the use of inappropriate sources when writing articles. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 11:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
talk page stalker]I find this conversation disturbing, to say the least. While I have not personally examined the evidence presented at the Argentine History case, it was my understanding that Lecen did present evidence to back up all of his assertions, and that the ArbCom did examine it, and as a result, banned both of the editors named by Lecen from further edits on the topic of Argentine history. No one wants Wikipedia to be used to promote a fringe ideology. And yet, Lecen is being told that his discussion of their conduct is inappropriate, while nothing is being said about their discussion of his conduct.
Lecen's assertions have been presented in forums specifically dedicated to examining editor conduct, and have included diffs to back up the assertions. MarshalN20's accusations against Lecen, in the form of very publicly visible edit summaries, have been coming through my watchlist for several days now, most recently publicly accusing Lecen of slander, ("Slander, AN/I, and ArbComm"), which in the U.S. at least, is a legal issue. While Lecen has posted multiple diffs of the behaviour of MarshalN20 that he considers problematic, (see for instance here), the "evidence" posted by MarshalN20 consists of mostly blue links to essays like WP:STICK and WP:MEAT, which are in themselves unsupported accusations. And yet, you don't see one-way interaction bans being used anymore. I hope the committee would consider lifting the interaction ban altogether, since it seems to be enforced against only one of the participants, the only one who doesn't need it, and who also seems to be the only editor who is willing and able to monitor the others for infringements of their topic bans.
I also think you may have misinterpreted Lecen's comment about being blocked. His statement was, in part, "For three years I tried to warn the community ...the community is unable and unwilling to do anything about it. You should lift the ban and let them do whatever they want. That's what's going to happen anyway." I don't interpret this to mean Lecen wants Wikipedia to start reflecting a fascist point of view, to me it just expresses extreme frustration. It's an example of a Reductio ad absurdum argument, a type of irony which for some reason never seems to work very well in threaded discussion.
You may also be interested in a current discussion at ANI, which involves a proposed community interaction ban, in a matter that has already been accepted for consideration by the ArbCom. In this case at least, it seems the community does not want to view an interaction ban as applying to meta discussion, such as at ArbCom. — Neotarf ( talk) 04:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
It's worth noting that these edits (actually "this edit" - there is only one) would not qualify under the original Arb case as "automation". It is only because of the amendment by motion (which of course I bear some of the responsibility for, but which is incredibly far reaching) that the question arises. I took the view at the time, perhaps naively, that no-one would abuse that ruling, and no admin would back them up if they did. Time and again, I have been proved wrong.
As to Roger's question, I have, I hope, answered it on Roger's talk page. It's a bit TLDR but I expect that will not deter you. All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC).
5th Prize | |
Relax and have a drink after a gruelling contest. Nice work! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC) |
after the first person whom I asked Did you know ... declined? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I try hard not to get involved in the "infobox war", really, but made one comment here. April Fool is over, but the edit summary mentioned would not have seemed appropriate even then, imo, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I like to box. How I like to box! So, every day, I box a Gox. In yellow socks I box my Gox. I box in yellow Gox box socks.
I read "Prepare to die" in the next sad case. I read "apology" above. Time of Lent, time to repent. I want to apologize in cases where I said something degrading to or about an editor, and where I inserted an infobox where I knew that the author didn't want one. Only, I remember no such case, can you help me? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Passion today, dedication on the talk, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:18, 18 April 2014 (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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
User:Sportsguy17/Happy Holidays 2013
Trick or Treat! Happy
Halloween Worm That Turned! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go
trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween!
—
dain
omite 15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks. |
Little user not know if be precedent for admonishment of admin by motion? Haha. Surely many times! See how even Bishzilla herself admonished by motion for (very good) admin action! [1] ([Tolerantly:] Show silliness of little 2009 committee.) Little Worm please add note to comment here, dispel ignorance! bishzilla ROARR!! 17:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC).
Dave, a user has been pestering the life out of me (in good faith) on my tp and by email. Where he is headed iis clear, and I've tried to answer as friendly as possible but I'm running out of ideas, and time to devote to this. Maybe you can help. See threads here, here, and here. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I would love to be adopted! If interested as much as I am, please visit my talk page and let me know! Here2HelpWiki 3-to-talk 18:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not clear to me. Your opinion? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 10:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Dave, do you have a presence over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist or does anyone else watching here? I'm stuck in the backlog and have been for almost a month. I'd appreciate any help possible with my request. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 11:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
What can be done about the uncivil behaviour of Eric Corbett? See Talk:Wells Cathedral#Restrictive which. I would like to take this further if I could. There should be no room on Wikipedia for his awful behaviour. Particularly this comment, which I consider to be baiting: "My only difficulty is with your ignorance". I would appreciate your help very much. Inglok ( talk) 01:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Three weeks have passed. Any plans to do anything with User:Worm That Turned/Eric Corbett any time soon? Fram ( talk) 13:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There is also an issue when Anglicanus reacts so badly to my increasing pressure on him to withdraw the "patronising git" comment that he starts to talk about getting me removed as an admin, yet being completely intransigent when I try to reach out to reach a compromise with him. He has bluntly refused to budge one bit, which shows an unwillingness to negotiate and reach a mutually acceptable compromise (though I do not think I can change my opinion about his "patronising git" comment.) You can read it for yourself on his talk page, and his response led me to believe that walking away was the best solution at this point. DDStretch (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
I saw your question to Richwales today and wanted to thank you for the work you do despite all that has happened to you. I know what it feels like and feel so sad that you and probably others have been subjected to this kind of treatment. Best wishes. olive ( talk) 16:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC) |
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis
Bringing a constructive idea out of the former confusion, maybe arbs who can get elected intra-term actually should be able to have two arbitratorships running concurrently, with each arbitratorship allowed one vote in arbcom decisions? Continuing confidence of electorate = extra power. Just like Julius Caesar, who ... -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a serious backlog of about 20K individual IPs that are blocked without expiration. I have broken the IPs into groups of 5000: m:User:とある白い猫/English Wikipedia open proxy candidates. So they are effectively blocked until time ends. This creates considerable potential collateral damage as the owners of IPs tend to be not very consistent. Some of these IPs are on dynamic ranges which results in arbitrary blocks of good users. Vast majority of the blocks go back years all the way to 2004 - some were preemptively blocked. Nowadays even open proxies normally do not get indefinite blocks.
The problem is that no single admin wants to review this many IPs and very few have the technical capability to review. Such a technical review would be non-trivial for individual IPs which in my humble opinion would be a complete waste of time. I feel ArbCom could step in and provide criteria for bulk action. A bulk unblock of all indefinite blocks (with exceptions if the specific single IP unblocks are contested) before - say - 2010 would be a good start.
Open proxies tend to be better handled at meta as open proxies are a global problem for all wikis.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Important article improvement milestone - nice to see this essential article getting the recognition it deserves! -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC) |
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 16:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey! If you've got a good memory, you'll remember that about a year and a half ago, you participated in the Bacon WikiCup 2012. Unfortunately I became inactive before I could give out the awards, which I apologize for. It's been forever since I disappeared from Wikipedia, but I decided to check back in out of nostalgia. I know I'm really pushing it with "better late than never", but here it is: your very-long-overdue medal. Cheers, ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 23:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
[[
Image:Bacon WikiCup 2012 Medal.svg|120px]] |
Bacon WikiCup 2012 - Participant Medal | |
Due to your work in expanding bacon-related content during the Bacon WikiCup 2012, you have been awarded the Bacon WikiCup 2012 Particpant Medal. You received a final score of 204, earning yourself second place. Congratulations, and thank you for your great work! ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 23:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC) |
Greetings, Mr. Craven,
I messaged you apprx. 5 months ago re: adoption and at the time you weren't adopting even though you had listed on the page that you might have time for adoption - at least I believe that I am remembering this correctly! I messaged you and, at most, possibly one other person about adoption, but I do believe that you were the one person that I messaged about this opportunity. I've read that you are moving into a lower stage of Wikipedia work, but, I would like to know if you might possibly be able to take on a lower activity adoptee who also does their own research on how to enter edits, etc on Wikipedia before asking for help. Is there a chance that you might consider taking on an, at this time, low maintenance adoptee?
Also, regardless of the adoptee question, I wanted to ask you a question, quick question, about an edit I made to the "Mink Stole" page - I believe my second edit, the citation, was done correctly but, as you will clearly see, I added a film for 1971, "Is There Sex After Death" and I followed the formatting of the other films in that decade and had a big blunder - the list ended up outside of the sectioned box! It is really very obvious, is in the filmography section of her page and the problem addition is on the far right side - listed in the early 1970's section - film is a 1971 film. I am not even sure of how to flag the page so that somebody can assist me with the correction of the formatting. All of the information is there and when in edit mode it even appears correctly in the list of her film history. If you have a moment and can check on it, I would really appreciate it, Mr. Craven. If you do drop in and correct it, could you please, in brief, explain why the film listing didn't appear in the row once I chose to "Save" the edit - I would really appreciate it.
I hope that all is well with you in England, Loren M. Cooley (lmc33) Detroit, Michigan - USA 20:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmc33 ( talk • contribs)
ps - Mr. Craven, I attempted to reply to your message to me from 5 mos. ago, and this is message to you placed here, "User Talk", I'm not sure if this is correct! I am so sorry if it is not and hoping that you might show me how to properly reply to messages received and how to message a user correctly when initiating the contact. Thank you, again, for your response and assistance. lmc33 20:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmc33 ( talk • contribs)
Dave -- Good day, I tweaked your post to add a header and started a section to the talk page. Apologies if I overstepped my bounds. I also seconded the nomination as I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of that Editor. Lettik ( talk) 14:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Best wishes | |
for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC) |
JianhuiMobile
talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
JianhuiMobile talk 07:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
—
cyberpower Online
Merry Christmas is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— cyberpower Online Merry Christmas 22:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)
~
TheGeneralUser
(talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Dave, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Worm That Turned, Happy New Year! I am not asking to be unblocked. I am asking that my block be replaced with a global lock, and my Mbz1 user pages were left undeleted. Global lock is possible by an editor request. Please see here. The thing is that vanishing my account probably will not work for me. It was tried on Commons, and it just did not work because of the images.
Also could you please undelete all pages in my user space deleted by Jehochman. I have never asked him to delete my user pages.
I am not asking to be allowed to edit Wikipedia, and I am not interested in editing Wikipedia. The only thing I am asking for it is just a little bit of understanding. Is this so much to ask for?
Thanks. Mbz1 50.150.100.112 ( talk) 14:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia wants me to leave. I want to leave Wikipedia even more.
Blocks are not to punish.
In my particular situation it is.
So here's a proposed solution. I will email my password to you. You will login to my account, change my password, remove my email address.
I am leaving wikipedia and everybody is happy.
If I am back, the block is reinstated and banned user template is added to my user page.
I see no reason to refuse me in such simple and fair for everybody involved solution other than to punish me.
Do you see any other reason that could prevent the committee to treat a named person with dignity and understanding? 50.150.100.112 ( talk) 15:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Worm that turned, you advised me above to appeal the block to the arbcom. I am not interested in editing Wikipedia, but I'd like to appeal my block and to leave your site in peace. I am requesting that appeal to be in an open here on Wikipedia on my own talk page, an appeal, in which I am allowed to participate. I'd be very civil, and everybody would be allowed to comment. I am only asking of one thing: "every comment that accusing me of harassment (I am banned for harassment) should have at least one on-wiki diff". I would accept the decision of this open appeal. And listen, I am not looking for attention, I am looking for transparency. I am not looking for drama, I am looking for the truth to come out, and I am requesting this open appeal not only for myself, but also for others in a similar situation, and for Wikipedia too because nobody should be ever treated as I am. Regards. 24.6.208.112 ( talk) 15:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
—
cyberpower Online
Happy 2014 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— cyberpower Online Happy 2014 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Jianhui67
talk★
contribs — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Jianhui67 talk★ contribs 09:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Worm That Turned! I am not sure if you remember me, but you adopted me in February, 2011. You archived my page because I was inactive. However, I would like to graduate. Is this possible with your schedule? Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelo Michael ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I opened a discussion about whether or not to log alerts/notifications on the here. I'd be interested in hearing your views. Roger Davies talk 19:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I can digest the archives only in small quantities, so only now came across your precious comment which said it better than my own. Thank you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dave, I've answered the leftover questions which were due for sometime. You can have a look at them, and then we can proceed forward. Thanks. ~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
That is intended to be a vote to close, right? [3] -- Rs chen 7754 08:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Your vote would be appreciated on the Conduct unbecoming FOF to enable us to close the case. Roger Davies talk 10:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
For the oppose [4]. You're probably wikisaavy enough to get it's not a personal thing, I'd oppose any sitting arb from taking on that role. (Actually it's your own fault for posting on 28bytes page, 'cause I have that, not Rfb, watchlisted). NE Ent 00:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the topic of the unspeakable little things, please tell me one occasion in 2014 where you found my discussion unhelpful, - please not counting where I spoke for Andy, because that will stop once he is free again to design "his" articles as he likes them. Repeating: I am not passionate about the things (not even all my own articles have one), but about people and fairness. I can't say so in the clarification, because I exhausted my permitted number of comments in a discussion by pointing out what I really thought was productive collaboration of editors on "different sides" ;) I would like to see more of that. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Since that case though, half the time I've come across Gerda is when she's been re-hashing the case. The important thing about arbitration is the finality of it and that is why Risker and Brad (I believe) suggested she move on. Sometimes a decision needs to be made and it needs to be accepted once it is made.
My express hope is that Gerda will move away from infobox debates and re-focus on the things she is not only good at, she's one of the best at. WormTT( talk) 11:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I have closed your RfB as successful and you are now a bureaucrat. Probably the only context in which that isn't an insult... WJBscribe (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Worm That Turned,
I've left the message below the DS Review page [5], and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen ( talk) 22:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.
Dave, after the piles of congrats to which I added, can we get to work? You have limited time, I have limited time, I am a DYK person and suggest simple questions and answers.
Did you know
Interrupting, how about getting to know Andy? See
article,
European Parliament project and
NPR appearance. You will see immediately what's missing in the article. Help,
All Things Considered? --
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 15:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Well done on your RFB, oh most hatted of Wikipedians! Yunshui 雲 水 15:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Could you make me admin? I learn so much from Wikipedia and I would love to be an admin. Please grant me permission
THANK YOU!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDraggon ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't you think that the user should be unblocked and allowed to participate in that RFC? The danger he damages Wikipedia is none, and you know that. Please do the right thing. Let Colton Cosmic to participate. 69.181.40.211 ( talk) 17:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I just logged in an incident on ANI. Check this [6]. I feel that the action by the admin in discussion was harsh, sudden and one sided. Whilst I wait for the discussion on ANI to progress, I am placing a request to you if you can review this independently and give me your feedback. Cheers AKS
I've placed the comment below on Roger Davies' Talk page under the heading 'Correction to collapsed discussion' and am copying it here because the point is obviously one of vital concern to all arbitrators. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Roger,
Could you please correct this comment you made at [7]:
This is your fourth edit since you were asked to back off yesterday. Whatever benefit there might have been in your contributions has been lost in the - to put it mildly - freeranging nature and inquisitorial tone of your comments. You have singlehandedly provided about half the commentary over the last month, sometimes derailing discussions, stopping others in their tracks, and contributing greatly to bloat. Please now step right back.
Your statement is inaccurate. I made only a single comment after I was told my comments were unwelcome by AGK yesterday, and that comment was made in reply to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Can another editor no longer ask me a question, and receive a reply? The four 'edits' were merely 'fixes' to that single comment, as is obvious from the edit history. Please correct that inaccuracy by removing your statement which implies that I made four separate comments after being told my comments were unwelcome, and which fails to recognize the fact that I was replying to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Your statements that I have 'derailed discussions' or 'stopped others in their tracks' are also both inaccurate. I have never done that, nor have you provided an example of either. I have merely raised questions, and in almost every single case an administrator, either you, AGK, or Salvio has abruptly shut down any discussion of the questions I have raised. The questions I've raised are valid ones. Perhaps they seem 'inquisitorial' to you and to other administrators because you are committed to discretionary sanctions and you cannot look at them from the point of view of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who find DS strange, unjust, and harmful to the project.
Also your own comments which you later added to that section directly contradict the information provided to me by Robert McClenon, so why has Salvio been permitted to collapse the discussion with the comment 'Asked and answered' when the question obviously hasn't been answered? You state unequivocally earlier in the discussion that I was the only one ('one notable exception') who didn't understand the difference between the powers exercised by administrators in DS and in non-DS situations, and Salvio rudely told me that my question had been answered before, and that I was exhibiting 'supine ignorance'. The discussion now shows I was clearly not the only one who didn't understand the difference, since your later comment completely contradicts the explanation of the difference given by Robert McClenon. It is not healthy for Wikipedia when even an experienced editor like Robert McClenon obviously doesn't understand the difference between the powers, and when you have to tell Robert that his explanation is completely wrong, and when no Wikipedia editor can find anywhere on Wikipedia a clear difference and distinction between the powers. The only way to fix this is to set out on the DS project page a clear explanation of the difference between the powers of arbitrators, the powers of administrators in DS situations, and the power of administrators in non-DS situations. At present the differences are completely blurred, and no Wikipedia editor has access to a clear statement of what an administrator is actually authorized to do in DS situations as opposed to non-DS situations, or how the powers of administrators differ from those of arbitrators. Robert McClenon stated that administrators in DS-sitations have been given 'arbitrator-like powers'. By what authority has this happened, since administrators were not elected to be arbitrators? This blurring of powers, the refusal to clearly set out for the benefit of all Wikipedia editors the differences between the powers exercised by arbitrators, administrators in DS situations and administrators in non-DS situations, and the handing over of arbitrators' powers to administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not healthy for Wikipedia, nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above).
Are you sure you want to use the word "fun" in regards to the case that involves the comments made about a young man who is no longer with us? 69.181.193.108 ( talk) 16:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
(Ec)*Everybody, mentally ill and mentally healthy, should be treated with more compassion, more kindness and more understanding. Eric got upset about somebody using that template at their talk page, but honestly Eric's retirements is the same thing. His retirements is his way to request for assistance and understanding, and as every human being he should be given some.
Hi,
I noticed you taking over the block on User:Arri at Suburban Express on behalf of Arbcom. Note that I had also blocked two declared alternate accounts of the same person, User:Arri416 and User:Suburban Express President as part of the same administrative action. I don't know whether taking those over would amount to anything more than bureaucratic nitpicking, but it's probably best if you're aware of these. I'll also note that I blocked the second one 2 months later after another user drew my attention to it, and there were no shenanigans involved with that particular account in the meantime. Thanks, MLauba ( Talk) 14:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
You should know that I used the pie for a special award for a brave editor, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editor review#RfC: Should we mark WP:ER as historical?. As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editor review (2nd nomination) last year, you may be interested in the current RfC discussing closing and marking ER as historical. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 02:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you really think it was wise to unblock him? He started trolling me immediately after your misguided goodwill gesture. See ANI. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 18:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I have not been following the Toddst1 drama, but he was right about this socking issue. Just ask user User:Ymblanter, who was the main target of that IP socking/trolling. In your (ArbCom's) misguided attempt to punish Toddst1, you have enabled the return of a much worse editor (Holdek). Someone not using his real name ( talk)
Have you (ArbCom) formally decided that Holdek was not IP socking? Someone not using his real name ( talk) 18:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
On 3 March 2014, Schon gewusst? was updated with a fact from the translation of the article Stargazy pie, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was: Wenn aus einer Backform Fische Richtung Himmel gucken, könnte es sich um Stargazy Pie handeln. (When fish gaze from a form to heaven it might be Stargazy Pie.) You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( quick check). |
Guten Appetit, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dave! Not sure if you remember me from the Training the Trainers event last year? I'm currently the Wikipedian in Residence at York Museums Trust and we're having an edit-a-thon on March 16th. It'd be great to have you along! There's a broad spectrum of topics inspired by York's luminaries and the curators will be bringing some fun stuff to show and tell. Hope to see you there! PatHadley ( talk) 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)
The motion reads as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drink, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaerobic ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Clarification request: Toddst1/Holdek has been closed and archived. An archived copy of the of the request can be seen here. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang ( talk) 07:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if on the Spanish Wikipedia. If I am allowed to make an article about a Spanish Christian church, in Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDraggon ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!
It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:
Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi WormTT,
I understand you are not taking any adoptees ATM but I would love an adopter suggestion. Maybe a former student? etc?
Thank you, Forrest ForrestLyle ( talk) 21:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dave - thought I'd swing by and say hello after your message, since we haven't been in touch for a while. You got me thinking - given the serious rate of adopter attrition (have you taken a look at the list of adopters recently? Not a lot of green headers there...), do you think it would be a worthwhile exercise to temporarily shut up shop on the existing adoption program, and reopen it as part of the Reimagining Mentorship project when that eventually goes live? I'm - very casually - considering whether or not to open an RFC on the subject. Yunshui 雲 水 07:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, gotta admit it, "I'm impressed". Thanks.
Pdfpdf (
talk) 17:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW: Are "Walking on water" and "Turning water into wine" also tools you keep up your sleeve?
How do you like it?— cyberpower ChatOnline 14:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that in order to make my request I had to remind arbitrators of what happened first. How could I make a point without explaining the facts? And I believe there is a difference between users having to avoid each other and clear, blatant censorship. The arbitration case was not about three users behavior when interacting among themselves, but about the use of inappropriate sources when writing articles. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 11:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
talk page stalker]I find this conversation disturbing, to say the least. While I have not personally examined the evidence presented at the Argentine History case, it was my understanding that Lecen did present evidence to back up all of his assertions, and that the ArbCom did examine it, and as a result, banned both of the editors named by Lecen from further edits on the topic of Argentine history. No one wants Wikipedia to be used to promote a fringe ideology. And yet, Lecen is being told that his discussion of their conduct is inappropriate, while nothing is being said about their discussion of his conduct.
Lecen's assertions have been presented in forums specifically dedicated to examining editor conduct, and have included diffs to back up the assertions. MarshalN20's accusations against Lecen, in the form of very publicly visible edit summaries, have been coming through my watchlist for several days now, most recently publicly accusing Lecen of slander, ("Slander, AN/I, and ArbComm"), which in the U.S. at least, is a legal issue. While Lecen has posted multiple diffs of the behaviour of MarshalN20 that he considers problematic, (see for instance here), the "evidence" posted by MarshalN20 consists of mostly blue links to essays like WP:STICK and WP:MEAT, which are in themselves unsupported accusations. And yet, you don't see one-way interaction bans being used anymore. I hope the committee would consider lifting the interaction ban altogether, since it seems to be enforced against only one of the participants, the only one who doesn't need it, and who also seems to be the only editor who is willing and able to monitor the others for infringements of their topic bans.
I also think you may have misinterpreted Lecen's comment about being blocked. His statement was, in part, "For three years I tried to warn the community ...the community is unable and unwilling to do anything about it. You should lift the ban and let them do whatever they want. That's what's going to happen anyway." I don't interpret this to mean Lecen wants Wikipedia to start reflecting a fascist point of view, to me it just expresses extreme frustration. It's an example of a Reductio ad absurdum argument, a type of irony which for some reason never seems to work very well in threaded discussion.
You may also be interested in a current discussion at ANI, which involves a proposed community interaction ban, in a matter that has already been accepted for consideration by the ArbCom. In this case at least, it seems the community does not want to view an interaction ban as applying to meta discussion, such as at ArbCom. — Neotarf ( talk) 04:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
It's worth noting that these edits (actually "this edit" - there is only one) would not qualify under the original Arb case as "automation". It is only because of the amendment by motion (which of course I bear some of the responsibility for, but which is incredibly far reaching) that the question arises. I took the view at the time, perhaps naively, that no-one would abuse that ruling, and no admin would back them up if they did. Time and again, I have been proved wrong.
As to Roger's question, I have, I hope, answered it on Roger's talk page. It's a bit TLDR but I expect that will not deter you. All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC).
5th Prize | |
Relax and have a drink after a gruelling contest. Nice work! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC) |
after the first person whom I asked Did you know ... declined? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I try hard not to get involved in the "infobox war", really, but made one comment here. April Fool is over, but the edit summary mentioned would not have seemed appropriate even then, imo, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I like to box. How I like to box! So, every day, I box a Gox. In yellow socks I box my Gox. I box in yellow Gox box socks.
I read "Prepare to die" in the next sad case. I read "apology" above. Time of Lent, time to repent. I want to apologize in cases where I said something degrading to or about an editor, and where I inserted an infobox where I knew that the author didn't want one. Only, I remember no such case, can you help me? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Passion today, dedication on the talk, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)