User talk:Andrevan/Archives/49

Gospel of Matthew
Suit yourself, though I have been editing Gospel of Matthew, which is the main mediation focus. -- 101.119.15.65 (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I was about to create a section to notify you that an IP (101.119.15.110) left me a complaint about the mediation on my user talk last night. I thought you should know of anything that might be related to the mediation, and considered it possible that others might be seeing stuff like that too. Then I saw this. So if anything ever comes to having to pursue the possibility of inappropriate behavior from IPs, here you have another datum. Evensteven (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I made some additions to the GoM article, as we discussed in mediation, per WP:BRD. Unless someone is apoplectic over them, I think we will be able to close the mediation soon. I can't see leaving it open indefinitely in the hope that Ret.Prof may one day return. Ignocrates (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, has indicated on his talk page that he is recusing himself from further editing on the Gospel of Matthew article, see diff. Therefore, I think we have returned to normal editing, and the original purpose of the mediation is at an end. Thank you for your assistance as mediator in helping to bring about a resolution to this protracted content dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing?
Hi Andrevan: It appears that the mediation has wound down. Did you want to make a final comment on the case talk page before closing? It seems to have been a successful mediation, no? Sunray (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Interview ready for responses
Hi Andrevan, April 2 is coming right up and the quarter is drawing to a close. Sorry it's taken me a bit of time to get this together. In reference to this previous discussion, the interview is now completed and I was hoping you could share your thoughts when you get a free moment this weekend. The numbering in the interview may change as I edit the thing into perfect shape after the responses have all come back, but the questions will stay the same and of course I won't modify your or anyone else's responses. You can respond here, at my talk page, or within the interview itself. Whatever is easiest. Thanks again for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I've imported your contributions into the final product which can be seen here here. The newsletter is due to go out tomorrow today, but feel free to modify your answers or fill in any more any time up until it's published. -Thibbs (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC) (updated -Thibbs (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
 * OK It's been published now. Thanks again for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks
I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciated your thoughtful participation in the process. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 19:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Quick question
Hi Andrevan, WP:VG's Newsletter department is looking for editors to interview for our Featured Editor column, and your name has come up in discussions during previous quarters as a likely candidate. From your edit history it is apparent that you are not currently as active an editor as you once were, and it's completely understandable if you don't have the time to be interviewed any more. But if possible, we'd love to hear your story from you. The interview consists of some 15 questions that you can answer however you like and which you can tinker with up until the newsletter is published. Our hope is to have a small number of interviewees cued up for upcoming Featured Editor columns so your interview would most likely appear in a future issue. You can review previous interview questions here to get a sense of the kinds of questions you would be asked. If you see this note, please let me know at my talk page if you would be willing to answer some questions for the Newsletter. Thanks! -Thibbs (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

On clouds
I am utterly appalled at this ignorant comment....

...there's no such cloud as a cumulostratus, let alone a fluffy one. Stratus clouds are flat and featureless, in fact. I expect far better knowledge of clouds from the elite few who judge our positioning under them. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits at BN
Hi. I just wanted to say thank you for your recent edits at BN. I particularly appreciated this edit. I'm glad that you're still around and I hope you're well. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Just a minor thing
On this page, you referred to User:Fluffernutter as male ("his unease"). They are in fact female. It'd be nice to be accurate on that. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Sunday August 24: Westchester County Edit-a-thon
Please check it out, and sign up if you can come: Meetup/NYC/Westchester.--Pharos (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

An important message about renaming users
Dear Andrevan,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Arbitration
I have made a request for arbitration. - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Bullying
You knew about the new ArbCom civility case, right? I don't expect to say anything there, and my only real concern is maybe differentiating for separate penalties some of the things lumped together on that page, but feel free to! add anything you think appropriate. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Help needed
@Andrevan: I am working hard at following your sound advice! Gone is the Text-walling and I will be careful to (1) use only high quality reliable sources, and (2) accurately summarize what they say. Before actually adding material from Casey 2014 to the article, I posted this reference in the Bibliography under General Works. I also suggested we take a week and carefully read this scholarly work to see if we can use any of Casey's material. Their reaction was swift and immediate: Could you help us once again?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete Casey 2014 from the Bibliography,
 * 2) To bury me under a mountain of comments that are so very wrong, that it would appear many of editors do not even have a copy of Casey.
 * Hmmmmm...Today I just removed a broken link and was reverted by a user account created a couple of months ago. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

One hat only please
I think this comment you made on the talk page at Talk:Gospel of Matthew makes you "involved" as an editor, and therefore, unable to serve in a future capacity as a neutral mediator. Of course, anyone is free to participate as an editor, yet you mentioned several times you know nothing about the subject. What hat do you see yourself wearing here? Ignocrates (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no one requested your participation as an informal mediator but Ret.Prof. Therefore, you have some kind of agency relationship with him, and are acting as his advocate. You are not "informally mediating" anything, since no one else requested or agreed to your participation. Let's be clear about that. Ignocrates (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So, you think my "stance has been unhelpful"? Let's see now, who negotiated the final wording in mediation and implemented the agreed-upon solution? That would be me. If the hat you are wearing is that of an uninvolved admin, then don't pretend you are doing something else. Ignocrates (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and don't delete templates, or any other content, from my talk page again without my permission. Ignocrates (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Appalling edit
This is an appalling edit, and as an admin you should know better. Please note that Retiring says that the meaning of semi-retirement "can vary widely; one semi-retired editor who previously made thousands of edits per month may only make a few hundred, while another semi-retired editor may only drop by to edit every couple of months." StAnselm (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't retire tag
LOL... a great response! - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI thread
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

DRN - Talk:Gospel of_Matthew
A request for assistance has been filed at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard on the dispute at Talk:Gospel of_Matthew in which you are mentioned. This notification is to invite your participation. PiCo (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Link: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard
 * "Therefore this is an instance of systemic bias masquerading as a consensus, and reliable sources are being excluded at the expense of NPOV."
 * I'm sorry but I need to ask a question to better understand where you are coming from. Do you have any editing/reading experience in the religion topic area? For example if I said to you SBL would you immediately know what I was referring to? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay then a couple of observations: (a) A certain feeling for what constitutes WP:RS in religious studies is necessary in religion articles, generally we look to weight to secular academic institutions, not seminaries. I haven't looked through even a fraction of recent editing activity, but I'm concerned anyone wanting to mediate rather than just get sucked in should be familiar with that difference. Not knowing what the SBL is approximately equivalent to religion WP:RS to not knowing what the NFL is in sports or SEC in finance. (b) claiming "orthodox Christian" could conceivably boomerang, as far as I know these editors all are highly committed to a secular academic viewpoint. And I would think only StAnselm is personally a conventional Christian and he distances, distinguishes and handles his sources better than any agnostic. The person I see with a genuine religious fervor in his view is User:Ret.Prof. Of course I am speaking from 3-4 years of watching it reoccur and my attention to recent detail has diminished with reoccurence, but I can tell fervent committment. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Genuine religious fervor" . . . "but I can tell fervent commitment". WOW you people have painted an ugly portrait of a crazed religious fanatic. I hope Guy Macon has not been so prejudiced against me that he can do his duty. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! Just so you know, I do monitor the talk pages and new edits of those involved in one of my DRN cases, but I skim over/ignore anything that isn't talking about article content, sources, etc. And of course on the DRN page itself we only talk about article content, never user conduct. I certainly don't accept the word of anyone involved in a case about another participant -- emotions can run high. So far, I have a pretty good impression about everyone who is participating, the two of you included. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Gospel of Matthew. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I noticed that you left a comment in the discussion section before I opened up the case for discussion. Do you have a problem with me moving it to your Summary of dispute section? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * For those following along at home. Andrevan said yes on my talk page and I made the change. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Finally Consensus
Ignocrates, PiCo, Eusebeus etc all retired! No arbitration???? It seems there is peace at last. I noticed that there has been several times that you have taken quite a beating. Sorry about that! All in all you have gone above and beyond the call of duty. I now plan to work on my "proposed edits". Thanks again! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Conduct unbecoming an admin. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad the ANI against you failed! It now see seems everyone has moved on. Thanks again...keeping it "short". - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible look at Talk page
Hello Andrevan; Over the week-end I saw an RfC at the Freud page which has not been closed-out, and the bot has removed the 30-day RfC template. Could someone see if it can be closed out. Cheers. FelixRosch (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Mentoring suggestion
Would you consider entering into a more formal mentoring relationship with Ret.Prof? I asked Courcelles about a precedent for it here. This is something ArbCom can easily put in place by motion. Otherwise, this is going to continue to happen. Please take it as merely a suggestion, since you are mentoring him informally anyway. Ignocrates (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

A small note
Hey Andrevan. I took the liberty of adding closed as successful to your closing in NorthAmerica's RfA here. Hope that's alright with you. If not, could you please, in your own words, mark the RfA as successful for archiving purposes? Thanks.  Wifione  Message 18:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just an added note. I noticed the brouhaha about your closing. These things happen and I think you took a most sensible step by allowing Xeno to close it. Best.  Wifione  Message 18:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops
2003? Wow, and I thought Bish was wiki-old...

Anyway, as I guess you're figured out, you messed up. But you've apologized and it shouldn't be a big deal. But I'm not sure you get the "why." For as long as I've been aware of bureaucrats -- probably maybe 4 years -- you guys really have been considered the most steadfast, calm, apoliticial group. That's why the uproar. In a sense it's a backhanded compliment that we're so shocked at the slightest hint of impropriety.

Your potshot at Dennis Brown was off base. Understand the frustration and been jumped on by the masses, but not really justified. I recommend use of around your comment. NE Ent 03:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrats&diff=next&oldid=635042862] NE Ent 04:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it's late in my timezone and I'm not communicating well and it wasn't my intent on coming to your talk page to give you more grief. (I'm thinking you've had your quota for today.) Reviewing the exchange I see Dennis's phrasing itself "playing cowboy" probably wasn't the best, either. So I should probably stop while I'm behind. Please pretend I wrote something coherent that conveyed it's not that big a deal, but here's a perspective on why folks are so cranky about it.  NE Ent 04:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Mail
You have e-mail. Chillum 05:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:GAN
I saw that you edited WP:GAN, but the bot reverted you. Please follow the instructions on the page so that you do not get reverted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Closed thread
Please revert me if you think the close was wrong. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

striking
I can't strike anything as my comments have been deleted by Artw. You'll understand if I'm reticent to undo it myself as I'm certain that will lead to the 4th ANI in 12 hours against me. I'm unclear how saying "As an author, subject does not meet our WP:AUTHOR criteria. Subject does not meet GNG. As a journalist, he is a freelancer for a small trade pub. As a businessman he is CEO of what appears to be a one-man company. Journalists will, inherent to their profession, have wide RS due to bylines." is "smearing" ArtW. I'm unclear why I'm being expected to just "deal with it" when faced with once-every-six-hours ANIs and having my comments edited and deleted by other editors. (I apologize if I come across as testy, that's not my intention.) BlueSalix (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your edits were restored already, they haven't been removed again. You aren't being asked to deal with it, just realize it's over now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here put your mind at ease [], their complaint is closed too and your comments were readded. Your behavior was fine at the afd. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your faith that my behavior "was fine at the AfD." Despite you and three other editors saying the same thing I'm going to be indefinitely blocked today anyway for my fine behavior. (This isn't my first tango with fringe theories editors. I'm familiar with most of their accounts, and I know their M.O. That's why I was a little skeptical that "it's over.") Anyway, before I'm benched and can't comment, I just wanted to take a moment to say that I appreciated your support. Sorry it was for naught. Best - BlueSalix (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't notice another editor restored them. This is the first time I've seen another editor deleting another parties edits in an effort to advance their side in an AfD discussion through obfuscation of rationale. I supposed this would be treated as a rather serious transgression given the lack of ambiguity of WP:TO and the fact the editor was proactively requested in advance not to execute the purging of my comments. I apologize that I misinterpreted the severity of it. BlueSalix (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries ;) if they continued it gets more serious. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor in question has not struck any comments and is continuing his bizarre and disruptive behavior. Artw (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * looks like it has been dealt with. Artw (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)