User talk:Majorly/Archives/51

Meetup
Hey mate, sorry to add another message to the pile of UK-related ones on your talkpage. Just thought I'd remind you about the London meetup in December; hope you can come along.Ironholds (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 65
Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 65: Censorship while you sleep has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

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) 10:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

Arbcom questions
Hi Al. I've replied to your questions here. I'd be interested in any feedback you have, and if there's anything you'd like clarifying. Best, fish &amp;karate 09:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays


 Marlith  (Talk)   has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.  Marlith  (Talk)   04:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly
It is not edit warring to revert a banned user. Specifically,. Jehochman Talk 15:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know who it is, and yes it is. Even if you think it isn't, you should have let a neutral user revert it. I see Tznkai reverted it for everyone else. You should have left it and let someone else decide. Very, very bad form to remove questions from people.  Majorly  talk  15:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to bureaucracy. If a banned user flaunts themselves, I will revert and block them anywhere, any time. Jehochman Talk 15:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's sad to hear. My opposition is now stronger than ever.  Majorly  talk  15:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a manner of best practice, I think that standing candidates should leave the WP:ACE pages well the hell enough alone - this is less a bureaucratic desire and more a "wow, look at all the ways this could get stupid, lets avoid that" desire. That having been said Moulton is a banned user evading his block, which is a major no-no, and our edit warring guidelines specifically except removing banned user's edits: they are on face unwelcome.--Tznkai (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 66
Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 66: Searching High and Low has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 07:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

The future for RfA
Hi there, i just want to say thanks for creating your sub page User:Majorly/RfA/Stats, i really appreciate these sort of things and you taking the time out to create it. Just want to ask what is your thought on the current RfA climate and do you think anything will substantially change come next year. We have the RfA review going on but i dont know whether anything will change dramatically. I am optimistic of course but i dont know how long it will take if anything does happen. You obviously know a lot more than i do in this regard but this year will be the lowest for admin recruitment since 2004 and the figures are way, way down from the previous 3 years. I have not gone through whether the number of candidates standing is as low since 04, not sure. What do you think has happened? I know you are busy and have got a lot on your plate with views on the election, but when you get time i would appreciate your thoughts and opinions. Thank You  Monster Under Your Bed  (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I just had a look and there were 239 admins promoted in 2004, albeit of course requirements back then were totally different compared to now but we have 194 so far this yr.  Monster Under Your Bed  (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Vandalism
Noted: although I figured bad faith, drama-whoring, disruptive block evasion fell somewhere in the vandalism category - what do you think the correct reason is?--Tznkai (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a quick corrective note - I had nothing to do with the unpersoning in the first place.--Tznkai (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The only one being disruptive and drama-whoring is yourself - protection was completely and utterly unnecessary. Have you not got anything better to do than play cops and robbers with him? It's up to the candidate to decide if they want to answer the questions, not you. They do not need a self-appointed hero saving the day by preventing so-called disruption. If I had been running (heaven forbid) I'd have reinstated any removal of good-faith questions. Stop being disruptive.
 * And so what if you weren't the one to ban him? You're blindly following policy, and misusing admin rights as you go. Excellent job.  Majorly  talk  19:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And none of those things fall in the vandalism category, quite clearly. Disruption, possibly, but not vandalism.  Majorly  talk  20:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot imagine what I've done to earn the hostility - but I'm sorry you feel the way you do.--Tznkai (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not really personal. I am like this to every person who blindly follows the banning policy. As I'm sure you know, there are different categories of banned users, and different types of disruption. Some banned users are banned by the Foundation, and were banned for stalking/threats etc. Such users I agree should never be allowed to edit - I learnt this the hard way (see my block log). Others are blocked for other reasons - exhausting community patience, through ArbCom etc. When such editors make an edit that improves an article, I don't see why it is necessary to revert it. OK, the user should be blocked. But the edit should remain if it's an improvement to the article. It's only making it worse for us. Effectively, reverting good-faith edits is bad. I don't consider the questions from Moulton to be bad. Apparently, some candidates even answered the questions asked by him, yet you removed them anyway. What benefit does removing have to Wikipedia? If an article is improved by a banned user, what benefit is it to revert to a worse version? None at all. There was another user, who was banned in late 2006 for exhausting community patience. I think he was 11, and just didn't understand how things worked. He's made a productive use of his time over on Simple English Wikipedia, yet here he is still treated basically like shit. It wasn't that the user's edits were problematic, it's just that he was annoying - I even endorsed his ban. But he's grown up. He came back as another user, and was becoming a very productive user, and then out of the blue, he was discovered and banned. His ban duration was reset. This punishment is just so petty and beyond belief. So he messed up in his early Wikipedia days. He now has to live with it forever, and couldn't even be given the chance to make a fresh start without a trigger-happy admin ruining it for him (and the encyclopedia).
 * Don't get me wrong - I don't support banned users editing. It is, however, inevitable that they're going to come back. If they edit the encyclopedia, that's their loss not ours. We gain something, because even though they improved it, they are still banned. They are the losers when they do that.
 * And I apologise if I was hostile, this just makes me very irritated.  Majorly  talk  20:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually agree to what you said - up to a point. The first category of banned user you mentioned are what I would put simply as "community threats" and they go, and they stay away until they've proven they've reformed. As to the rest - block evasion to me is not just merely against policy or a personal irritant for the community, its actually emblematic of a bad behavior. We don't want people editing that are so desperate to edit Wikipedia that they're willing to scramble their IP, or sock puppet, or so on. Sock puppetry in particular strikes me as something that makes administration of the wiki impossible, and article editing inane: accurately gauging consensus can become impossible.
 * You're right, there are real problems in placing permanent marks of shame on banned users who HAVE reformed, and are capable of making solid contributions. I think where we disagree is that I genuinely feel that any sort of block evasion shows that they have not reformed - until they are capable and willing of stopping that behavior, I think they are unwelcome.
 * As to the questions, when I was reverting, I'd say the vast majority of the time, if not all the time, the answers I reverted were "Why hello there banned user, what are you doing?" or similar things that fail the ignore part of this particular bit of wisdom. In addition, I think the ACE elections are community space - full fledged community members only, if someone wants so desperately to participate, they should reform.
 * I apologize for the disorganized nature of my comments here, but in general I think I agree with you as far as edits in article space - if its a good edit, by all means keep it - except in certain circumstances relating to community threats.--Tznkai (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S I'd be interested in who this particular user was - its never to late for a review.


 * Oh, and for what its worth, what I've read has suggested that both votes and questions require suffrage.--Tznkai (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Their ban expires in January, so probably not worth reviewing now.  Majorly  talk  20:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!


The Helpful  One  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. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanx
I must say, I was very surprised to see you support my RfA, that I was not expecting. While I cannot discuss the reasons for withdrawing my RfA so suddenly, I am happy to have received your support. It is not something I will forget. — Realist  2  21:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your participation at RfA
Hey Majorly, I just wanted to drop you a note to welcome you back to the RfA community... I know we (including myself) were hard on you a few months ago, but I want us to start out with a clean slate. I value and appreciate your participation there. As far as I am concerned, I have nothing but respect for you. What happened is in the past and I hope you share that view and it stays that way.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 05:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your final question
I hope to get to this before the polls close, but I'm very busy at the moment. Thanks for the question though. Cool Hand Luke 00:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 67
Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 67: Fundraising Interview has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. W ODU Pbot 07:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Sorry
Sorry about that. I should've realized it contained a higher percentage of wiki-markup than most spam stubs...  Litho  derm  22:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! I might just merge it in the end to an article on the school.  Majorly  talk  22:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Formatting
Hiya, I deleted your comment from my section, since comments are supposed to stay only under the headers of those who made them. If you'd like to still reply, you may wish to post to my talkpage, or add something to your own statement. Just FYI, --Elonka 00:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You should move it to my own statement then, don't just delete it.  Majorly  talk  00:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A possible way to cause even more drama
What about a straight-up confidence motion on each of the sitting Arb's? "We the community declare our confidence in arbitrator xxx", support, oppose or abstain, no comments allowed, just a name.

Or would that cause vastly more ill-feeling? (Probably yes) And would people want to participate? (Probably not, except the rabble-rousers) Franamax (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Would it be binding? Or just to give an idea? I don't think we can get anymore ill-feeling than we are now, so we've nothing to lose. The ArbCom supporters would probably close it/delete it as illegitimate anyway.  Majorly  talk  01:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no where the stature to start this but i've been wishing i could vote in one. I'm not a rabble-rouser, but I think i'm rabble.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * More drama? Who needs more drama? Are you bored or something? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Removal of arbcom/arbitrators who cause more problems than solve them will reduce drama in the long run.  Majorly  talk  01:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c x 2) Non-binding. Advisory only. If it's an RFC, what does it need to be certified? Evidence of a dispute? And certified by parties to the dispute? (Assuming they're not all blocked at the moment : The other course is a WP-space "essay".
 * No Jossi, I'm not bored (working on fixing sorting of multi-spanned tables right now) and I don't want to stir up drama. If there's a way we can clear the air though, we need to do it. If some Arb's need to step down or step back, somehow the community has to let them know in an organized fashion. Franamax (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And my section heading should be read in the spirit it was intended, which was "this might be a really bad idea, but..." Franamax (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ... which it is... There are seven new arbs coming on, so what is deal? Let it rest. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And there's eight staying, one of which has been highly criticised as of late. The members who are "leaving" aren't really leaving. They'll still have access to the mailing list, and still have the ability to give input into matters that don't concern them. That's the way it's done. Run for arbcom, then resign quickly, but not until you've been granted oversight and checkuser.  Majorly  talk  01:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I agree with that Jossi, at least as far as having new Arbs coming in will hopefully improve the situation. Unfortunately, the current Arb's aren't showing much restraint just at the moment. The legitimacy of the entire committee is at stake right now. I'd personally be happy if everyone would get unblocked and we could all do our shopping, order a fresh free-range turkey, and make some edits to that space, what's it called again, (main) or something? But that would require the ArbCom to settle down also. Franamax (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems there's no way we can evaluate the current arbitrators, without a bunch of people ruining it. Sad.  Majorly  talk  02:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are over commenting. Wait one hour between replies to prevent loud respected users from getting to respond to you over and over again. DepartedUser (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed
Subpaged and transcluded per your reasonable request. DepartedUser (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: And I removed your comment to prevent a pile-on from people who don't understand transclusion. DepartedUser (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Idea about granting Checkuser and Oversight access
I stayed on the Committee for two main reasons. First, I see a need for greater oversight of people with Checkuser, Oversight, as well as the Arbitrators. I plan to not let the issue drop like happened last year after the election and later in the year when it came up again. Second, I want to make changes to the way that people with Oversight and Checkuser are selected.

I know you have strong feeling about the second one. As I've said in the past, I don't think that having a quick on site poll/vote/discussion will work on Wikipedia-English. Instead, I favor changing to a twice a year full election similar to the election of Arbitrators. The users would self nominate, answer questions, and then the Community would vote. We would have a high threshold for approval, maybe 75%. Once approved, Jimbo and ArbCom would certify them based on the order of votes received. I think the last step is needed to assure that no behind the scene issues come out at the last minute. Like in the current and recent past elections, I don't foresee any deviation from the selections of the Community. Maybe do it for the first time in June 2009 if the Community approves the idea. Could you get behind this approach? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never agreed to a "quick on site poll/vote" as such, but I don't see why it wouldn't work - we vote for arbitrators, admins, bureaucrats, mediators, stewards etc. What you're suggesting is basically a quick on site poll/vote, is it not? I think every half-year is a good idea, or as much as the current checkusers deem necessary. I can't really think of what questions people would ask, and it may be a bit much (I recall there were something like 40 applicants). I don't think arbcom should be the ones to certify them. The current checkusers, most of whom are arbitrators anyway should do that. But it would have to be someone like yourself who proposes such a thing. The community will probably ignore me.  Majorly  talk  23:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there are significant differences between my idea and the current Request for Checkuser method, which is quick poll. An RFCh is not scheduled and only has one candidate in it. An announced full election every six months would have a set date with a multiple choices available. I think this change will give the Community options instead of limiting them to a single person. I can see members of the Community wanting to ask questions to see if the person has good knowledge of the privacy and checkuser policy, and learn about their interpretation of these policies. Also, to check on the users background knowledge that would help them technically use the tool well. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it sounds like a good idea. Better than completely in secret.  Majorly  talk  16:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty interesting development. Two things to consider - perm or terms up for 2/3/5-years renewal, similar to how steward/meta admins are in office. And whether we should use boardvote (with overall results public) or full elections like we just had. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer permanent, but with an easy ability to remove should the person become inactive, or lose trust in the community, as several of our checkusers have done. I'd also prefer boardvote - that might sound odd coming from me, but since Checkuser/Oversights are very specific tools, and are a very big deal, I'd rather not have the squabbling that came about in this year's elections in the voting areas.  Majorly  talk  19:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I suspect if this goes ahead and turns out well, we might have AC2009 back on boardvote. - Mailer Diablo 19:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really like permanent anything, "easy to remove" == "drama". What's wrong with a 2-year term, which spans a wiki-eon? Boardvote has merits, except in the case of term renewals, where I think the current "open-outcry" system works well. In the open system, all views can be made plain, and the unreasonable ones discounted by the discerning voters. For term renewals of OS and CU's, questionable use of the tool should be discussed. Franamax (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

speedy guide page move
Thanks for catching my typo.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And thanks for catching mine on User:Graham87/Page history observations and the comment on its talk page. I'm glad that someone else is fascinated by page move oddities. :-) Graham 87 05:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)