User talk:EVula/Oct-Dec 2009

This archive contains comments posted between October 2009 and December 2009.

Since there is not much happening on Wikipedia these days...
... I am attempting to cajole Jimbo into kick starting a discussion that will result in a policy for desysopping based on community input. As such, I would like to include User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul as part of a basis for how it may be set up. As you are the architect of the page I would request your permission to do so. As there is a general melange of discussion on my talkpage regarding my "initiative" I should be grateful if you would respond there. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You most certainly have my permission. :) As for getting involved in the initiative, I'm not going to be around much this weekend, but I'll try to swing by at some point to check it out. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 13:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

spam
I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ? 03:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

 * New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
 * Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
 * News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

 * From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
 * Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
 * Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
 * News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
 * Dispatches: Sounds
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Kww 3 - Bureaucrat discussion

 * Requests for adminship/Kww 3/Bureaucrat discussion

I've opened a bureaucrat chat in relation to this RfA as I don't think the outcome is particularly clear cut. If you have a moment, I'd appreciate your input. WJBscribe (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly tied up at the moment, but I can take a look at it when I get home from the theater tonight. Sorry. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
 * In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview: Interview with John Blossom
 * News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
 * In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

nudge
'Bout time, doncha think? :D

I happened to spot your username over on the Half-Life Wikia... would that be you, or an imposter?  bahamut0013  words deeds 15:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A project you might be interested in
Hi, I've recently created a project which, broadly speaking, will help to develop and support the enwiki community. At this stage, we're currently calling for individual proposals on how to improve Wikipedia. If you're interested, sign up and add your ideas here! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not dead
I'm not dead, just highly inactive. My show opens Friday, and the lines have been kicking my ass.

I hope to resume editing, even in a light capacity, on Monday. Just gotta get thru hell week and then opening weekend first. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I had already called dibs on your sig... er... I mean, I'm glad that you're OK! :D Good luck with your production.  bahamut0013  words deeds 19:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I hope you've found someone else for your question, 'cause I've certainly been taking my sweet sweet time. Ugh.
 * If anyone cares, you can follow my general exploits on Twitter. That's the only place you can get such gems on a regular basis, as well as read my whining about rehearsals running holy shit forever. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No doubt

 * Oh good, I was afraid I'd have to grace Commons with the evidence. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Geesh - I didn't mean anyone in particular and certainly not you! ;) hydnjo (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, 'twas just a general statement about the general unavailability of the 'crats at times. Since you've shown proper defference to Vera, I'll make sure you survive my eventual overthrowing of the project. ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your closing certainly removes any lingering doubt 'bout those big and brassy things up there! hydnjo (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not as impressed as these other guys. Now if you'd done it before Scribe and I posted this morning.... SOOOO, to prove you are worthy of the BBB award (I already have one), rename Jimbo post haste. ;-) HeHe. — Rlevse</b> • Talk  •
 * Damn arbs, always wanting evidence for everything... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ROFL<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 22:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Request
I was wondering if you could fix an issue in Nihonjoe's RFB. In the neutral section, the first one begins with a "#". I would fix it and place in a few colons, but since I don't have any special powers, I thought that it would be best to ask you since you closed it. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Standard practice(ish) is to not indent the very first !vote if its been struck. Since the # is within the strike tag, it's not being automatically indented (and numbered), so it's probably fine. (that said, it's not like I'd lose sleep if someone went in and removed it... I just don't think it necessary) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Joe RfB
It has been an interesting couple of weeks for me at WP. Haven't really been engaged in too many contentious events (but then, an emphasis on editing articles about women's basketball isn't exactly volunteering to walk through a minefield). The the ClimateGate incident broke (and I think WP is acquitting itself very badly) and the RfB issue was in progress. I was quite stunned to see the level of opposition over what I believe to be a fundamental misunderstanding of appropriate process. I feared, given the high bar (understandably) required for bureaucrats, that Joe would fail. I remarked to another editor that my world view of WP would be colored by the outcome, including my commitment to what has also struck me as an irrational project. I'm greatly cheered by the result. It would have been easy for crats either to note the level of opposition and close no consensus, or the level and the trend, making it an easier close, or not want to imply in any way anything other than a no-tolerance policy for pedophilia. Thankfully, you didn't take the easy route, and recognized that a pass could in no way (by an honest person) be construed as support for pedophelia.

The discussion and the result restored my belief that, while far from perfect, the process can lead to the correct result in important issues.

(I didn't realize until looking at the page that non-admins could weigh in, but that page feels stale now, So I'm posting this just to the opening and closing crats.)-- SPhilbrick  T  16:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'm glad I could help restore your faith in Wikipedia. Situations like these are why the position of bureaucrat is often thought highly of; 99% of the time, we're just like everybody else (primus inter pares), but that 1% of the time where we're called to step up, man, we better have our game faces on or there will be hell to pay. ;)


 * However, I don't feel like I deserve thanks any more or less than the other bureaucrats that participated in the chat; I was only the closing bureaucrat because I happened to be around a few hours after WJBscribe suggested we close as a promotion (and that decision was hastened by another 'crat, who had previously considered the RfB as having no consensus, changing his mind). My fellow bureaucrats were probably more active in the discussion than I was (I'm just coming off a lengthy wiki-break that has seen my editing across all the wikis I'm active on drop to roughly zero); I was just in the right place at the right time. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

<font face="Century Gothic"> Ret.Prof (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

ANI

 * Hello, I just wanted to let you know that there is a ANI thread about your actions: here. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  //  flagged revs now!  // 10:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What an entirely unexpected turn of events! :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL... No worries from me Evula. For what it is worth, my explanation of the block on Kurt's page created a ham fisted action, and I think you gave some well reasoned explanations for your overturning the block. I still think we should block him again, having discussed the process and the existence of the ban, but I'm not going to try and hold back the tide if my view is beyond the pale. In a nutshell, I think Kurt is banned, and that he is not being a good faith contributor right now. I blocked him without running it past anyone because I was operating under the belief that we had run this past the community last year. I indefinitely block long term trolls and clearly "disruption-only" editors on a regular basis without any drama. Kurt is no different than any of them, but he generates drama because he specifically targets admin related areas of the project.


 * As for the ArbCom comment, I really only meant that I don't support an overturn of the block by anyone unless ArbCom calls me out for being wrong. I didn't mean that to imply that I was giving an order to the community not to negate my block. Poor phrasing on my part all around. I'm taking a big picture view of dealing with Kurt while you're taking a process view of dealing with him. Neither view is wrong, and while they are not necessarily complementary to each other they are not contradictory views either.Hiberniantears (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome, it looks like we're both on the same "no worries from me" page. I love it when two people can disagree so very, very civilly... I wish it happened more often, but then again, I also wish I'd win the lottery (and, given the choice between those two, I'd go with the later).


 * Also, thanks for confirming that you didn't have a problem with being overturned. I kinda got the sense that you wouldn't have considered an unblock to be wheel warring, though there was nothing textual to back up that gut feeling. WP:EVULA strikes again! ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!
<div style="; float: left; margin-top: 3px; background-color: gold; padding: 10px; width: 98%; clear: both;"> <div style="; border: 5px solid mediumblue; background-color: darkred; text-align: center; padding: 18px;" class="plainlinks" valign="top" width: 100%;> <div class="NavHead" style="background: mediumspringgreen; ;"><font color="#000000">

 Set Sail  For The   Seven Seas    12° 40' 45" NET    00:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

E-mail
I've sent you one. Thanks. Acalamari 16:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Another gentle ping from WP:VG
Dear EVula,

You are receiving this message because either <tt>[[:Category:WikiProject Video games members]]</tt> or is somewhere in your userspace, and you are currently listed in the "Unknown" section on the project's member list.

The member list is meant to provide a clearer picture of active membership. It is recommended that you update your status if you plan to regularly:
 * Edit video game-related pages in the Article namespace
 * Participate in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)

Members listed in the "Unknown" section will be removed from the membership list and category at the end of January 2010. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

Sincerely, the Video Games WikiProject (delivery by xenobot  21:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)