This page 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.

Replying here since it isn't particulary relevant to the rfa. I'm just curious why you'd want to get rid of inactive admins with one process, yet create more at another. And I mean inactive in the sense that they're admittedly not going to use the tools. Is there any particular significance on whether someone edits articles or not in determining whether the tools simply existing are doing any harm or not? Or am I just missing something? - Bobet 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins that don't edit... at all... should have their flag removed. Admins that edit but don't use tools are still a net benefit. Al Tally ^talk 23:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understood from your previous comment that you feel that way, but you haven't answered my question (ie. why, and how?). - Bobet 07:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If the admin is still editing, there is a chance they'd still use the tools at some point. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not make thousands of logs deleting stuff like a bot. Whilst the user is editing the encyclopedia, they may see at some point they need to use admin tools occasionally. The user in question is not refusing to use admin tools; just that they have no particular place they would "work". The place people should "work" is the encyclopedia, and maintaining that.

So in answer to your question, they are a net benefit because with every edit or log they make, they improve the encyclopedia in some way. I don't care if they make a million logs, or zero in their tenure - the point is, if they need to use them, they can without bothering anyone else. Al Tally ^talk 14:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

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) 06:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this little tiff needs to be stifled. We obviously do not agree on what constitutes a good or bad oppose argument. Not everyone is going to agree and I'm ok with that, however, is it really fair to the candidate to see a sidetracked RfA? Let's just be civil about this. If you don't like my oppose argument, drop me a note on my talk page to discuss it. If you do not wish to do so, I'm going to ask that you cease mentioning my name at RfA (that's frustrating, and I think you know beforehand that it's a form of goading) and making sweeping comments about the opposition. I think it's better off if we both refrain from WP:SARCASM. Is that cool? Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 17:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[1] - Again, my apologies for my lack of work on this - by no means a slight to MFC - just a failure to review my watchlist properly! Pedro :  Chat  23:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. Al Tally ^talk 23:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(Posted to User talk:Majorly and User talk:Wisdom89 - if you want to reply in a central location, my talk page is open.)

Both of you need to shut up and think about the damage your bickering is doing to candidates. If you disagree with someone's RfA philosophy, take it to their talk page to try and convince them otherwise, or take it to WT:RFA to convince the 'crats that the comment should be considered without merit.

Think about the damage both of you are doing to candidates. giggy _{( :O)} 06:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I just read your piece on canvassing. I did not realise the canvassing ban was so new, but now you mention, I do recall a bit a low level self-promotion back in 2006.

In real life, I live in a democracy, not a wiki, so canvassing is a requirement. Since a wiki is not a democracy, canvassing serves a different purpose, and I really can't figure out its role, but thank you for making me think.

-- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 13:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On 21 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Puckering, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Bedford ^Pray 05:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for your support during my RfA. I am obviously disappointed in the outcome, but I got a lot of good constructive criticism from the process which can only be an improvement for me. Who knows, in the coming months after I've incorporated all this advice I may be successful. Cheers! Mark t young ( talk) 07:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, be honest.. Have you been possessed by Kmweber? Friday (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh gawd... maybe I have :O (Actually I commented there because of an OTRS request, but normally I wouldn't care either way.) Al Tally ^talk 14:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I consider this prima facie evidence of supernatural possession... suggest indef ban as a spiritpuppet!! ;-) Friday (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Majorly, I wanted to let you know that I've sent you an E-mail. Regards. Acalamari 16:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It may not be the Wikipedia Weekly, and it may not even be weekly - but it's scheduled for less than 24 hours time! - all the info is at the wiki page, and be sure to hang in all the usual places for help and guidance in hooking up the conference call! - feel free to ask me any questions, otherwise I look forward to chatting tomorrow morning (my time!) - cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 05:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

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) 07:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

At least you don't resort to death threats onwiki. giggy _{( :O)} 12:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Al Tally ^talk 12:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, email. Oh, and if you're editing as Al tally permanently now, your user/talk pages should be moved there. giggy _{( :O)} 12:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't have to if he owns both accounts. · AndonicO ^Engage. 12:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't, no, but it's confusing to click the "contribs" link and get someone who stopped editing months ago, yet is still active. giggy _{( :O)} 12:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have an issue, move them. Al Tally ^talk 14:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No offence intended, giggy, but if your first comment there implies receipt of a death threat (either from Majorly or someone else) can you please be a bit more clear so you aren't misinterpreted? Avruch 14:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's rather depressing to have a death threat issued at one for their RfA participation, and (to my surprise) I understand and (to an extent) appreciate what Filll has been saying of late. I'd rather not say too much about it onwiki for reasons that I'd hope would be obvious. — giggy 14:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me. I asked you via email but you failed to respond to that question. How about a diff? Al Tally ^talk 14:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Because I had started to notice User:Killerofcruft because of problematic behavior with another AfD, for Donna Upson, where he edit warred with an administrator, I saw the incident come down where he also edit warred with you over your speedy closure of WP:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination), and then I saw how AN/I utterly failed to respond to the situation. AN/I was designed for dealing with editor behavior, not content issues, ordinarily, but the AN/I report about clearly abusive editor behavior was quickly and successfully diverted to a discussion of the notability of the article, and the resulting delay was effective in keeping the AfD open. If this was a deliberate strategy, it worked.

I'm quite concerned about the division in the community which this has revealed. If you look at Talk for that AfD, you can find a list of the editors who voted and various characteristics of those editors. It is immediately obvious that the community is divided over which is more important: process or a "correct decision about notability." There are four administrators voting, effectively, on the notability side, and three on the process side. There are other aspects of this that can be seen in that report, and even more that I've seen and haven't written about.

The process that Wikipedia uses to determine notability is quite flawed, many would agree with that, but it is what we have, and it works in certain ways, and one of the things that makes it tolerable is that rapid renomination is highly discouraged, we might as well say prohibited, except that no specific time period has been set. It seems that there are more than a few editors and administrators, with collectively more edits than those who seem to care about the process, who are quite willing to set aside the policy against rapid renomination (and nobody has argued that this wasn't rapid) in favor of "making the correct decision" immediately.

I am thinking that it may be the time to try to address this directly. As a start, I have collected, at User:Abd/MKR incident, a history of the AN/I report. At this point, it is mostly a raw history, I intend to flesh it out to make it a more readable history, pointing out the salient events. There are two goals, ultimately: to show, clearly, how AN/I failed to perform its design function, to seek solutions as to how to make AN/I more functional (there are lots of ways it could be done), and, as well --possibly--, to address certain behavioral issues a bit more subtle than clear edit warring. AN/I was abused, in ways that I've seen many times, it's not just this incident. And we should stop it. It is as if, whenever someone calls the police, the operator puts off sending an officer until the parties involved have a big argument about it. If an officer sees a brawl taking place in a bar, the officer does not waste time deciding who was right. The officer stops the brawl, first. And, in fact, may never make any determination of fault, that's not his or her job. Keeping order is the job. I'd be appreciative of your comments. -- Abd ( talk) 22:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You were kicked from #wikimedia-ops by Majorly (Majorly) - Can you explain that kick, over me not being an ops? By my knowledge, wikipedia is intentionally an open community. With access to all sections for both admins and non-admins alike. So that (for example) new users have the ability to learn from the more experiences ones. And long time users can help out, questions can be equally well answered by those without heavy tools. For the cases where there really is privacy required, special channels have been created, such as #wikipedia-ops-internal on IRC. Basically I can think of no good reason why #wikipedia-ops should be restricted (that's what we have the internal channel for?). And belief it was a reasonable question to ask by what rules I had to leave for not being an op, in a wikipedia channel open to the public. I even pointed out that I contribute to wikipedia on a daily basis. But you provided no set of rules, or policy by what I had to leave, and just kicked me. =Species8473= ^(talk) 00:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer as an uninvolved party, IRC activities are not covered by the same behavioral rules as Wikipedia. The channels are not owned by the Foundation and are under the final authority of User:Jdforrester, please see Wikipedia:IRC#Problems_and_help for further instructions. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, while we allow in non-ops, we don't tolerate off topic conversation generally, which you continually kept starting. There is no written rule as such. Rules for IRC channels don't tend to be written, just enforced. You're free to re-enter the channel at any time, I only kicked you to try to get the point across. There are several non-ops who are regularly in that channel who don't have problems. On re-entering, please try to stick on topic, which is -ops, not -social. Conversation that has nothing to do with the running of the channels should go to the main Wiki*edia channels. Thank you, Al Tally ^talk 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The stated reason, for what you were going to kick me, was not being an ops. To that I objected in a civil way, but you kicked anyway. If off-topic is now the reason. I'm not going to deny having said things that don't directly relate to the channel. But a few lines at best, over several days. While in that span some operators have filled entire pages, on various off-topic subjects. Your statement that we don't tolerate off topic conversation generally is not supported by logs. More so, you too go off-topic at wikipedia channels on a regular basis, including the one you kicked me from. That alone makes your enforcement on others questionable. Personally I don't have big issues with IRC off-topic, as long as it doesn't disrupt ongoing on-topic lines of discussion. And such disruption I have not caused. Yesterday I only said hi to another wikipedian, and shortly after got kicked for not being an ops. Basically to me the only point you got across, is some doubt in how fair you are with the tools. =Species8473= ^(talk) 17:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 00:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)

I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

 Frank  |  talk  13:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

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) 03:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Episode 51. Go. Listen. Comment. Enjoy. WODUPbot 04:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't want these notifications anymore? Remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.

I got someone to create a Main Page barnstar, and I thought that you might be a good recipient. Your work on the Main Page redesign, as Al Tally, has been greatly appreciated. If you can reply here, or leave me a message, I can award it to you as soon as I can. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard ( talk) 00:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a clarification, I know that some editors disike all barnstars, so I was wondering if you are okay with them. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard ( talk) 01:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Majorly,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Shakespeare.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 13, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-07-13. howcheng { chat} 23:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 23:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)