GoneAwayNowAndRetired (talk | contribs) |
TheM62Manchester (talk | contribs) A barnstar for Cyde |
||
Line 570: | Line 570: | ||
This idea has me intrigued. Do you think RECALL would get needed support to become policy if there was such a thing that said "basis of dispute/primary evidence" must be from AFTER the time the policy is implemented? I.e., say you (hypothetically) did something vile and probably worthy of Recall x days, weeks, months, or years ago. What if the policy specifically said under Limitations "Diffs as evidence for basis of dispute must be dated after 10/01/06, the date this policy became effective. Older supplemental material/background material may be older." [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
This idea has me intrigued. Do you think RECALL would get needed support to become policy if there was such a thing that said "basis of dispute/primary evidence" must be from AFTER the time the policy is implemented? I.e., say you (hypothetically) did something vile and probably worthy of Recall x days, weeks, months, or years ago. What if the policy specifically said under Limitations "Diffs as evidence for basis of dispute must be dated after 10/01/06, the date this policy became effective. Older supplemental material/background material may be older." [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
:The specific idea being to stop any stupid or absurd flood gates of stuff from the "old days", and so that everyone--admin and editor alike--was on the up and up from Day 1 of the policy's adoption. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
:The specific idea being to stop any stupid or absurd flood gates of stuff from the "old days", and so that everyone--admin and editor alike--was on the up and up from Day 1 of the policy's adoption. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
== A barnstar for Cyde == |
|||
{{award2|image=Barnstar.png|size=100px|topic=The Original Barnstar|text=For being a good admin, running the [[User:Cydebot|Cydebot]], blocking vandals and other obnoxious users, and being a great admin. This barnstar's also for his knowledge of [[WP:BOT|bot programming]] (something I need to learn!) |
|||
So here's to you, Cyde! [[User:TheM62Manchester|TheM62Manchester]] 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) }} |
Revision as of 21:39, 14 August 2006
NO SPAMMING
Cyde's talk page
Archives
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
10
11
12
In need of a rouge admin
Would you have any interest in restoring the deleted edits from either User talk:Wsiegmund or North Saskatchewan River? Just for your own personal viewership?—[?????] 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That's very interesting, thanks for letting me know. I'm not really sure why MONGO is going around removing innocuous edits he made while logged out. --Cyde↔Weys 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- My personal view is to avoid people backtracking his ip to harass him outside of wiki. Syrthiss 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Misza13's pile!
Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. |
Barnstars and Sockpuppets
No worries about the barnstars, I'll just give it again in a week or so when the fervor has died down. If you try to protect it, I can always wait until the protection is removed or when I use a disposable admin puppet.
Oh yeah, speaking of socks, feel free to try and figure out which one the sockpuppet is. I wish you luck if you try a search :-) Karmafist 20:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Explanation/Apology
This will be long, please bear with me. I hope that you'll take the time to read this, as I think it will help immensely in resolving our dispute.
Now that your second block has expired, I'd like to explain my actions in hopes that you'll better understand what I have been doing and why I felt that your blocks had been unjustified. This is not an objective explanation, but an explanation of how I've felt and reacted during this situation, as well as my intentions during this time.
I first made Category:Gangster Wikipedians as a light joke, similar to a number of other "Wikipedian" categories, and I had hoped it would be taken that way. If I'd known then all the trouble that it would cause, I never would have created it, naturally. When it was put up for CfD, I figured that it would probably be deleted, but I saw the CfD as an opportunity to establish a precedent for similar categories, as they've been somewhat troublesome to decide a solution for at times. When you closed it after one day, I was rather suprised and contacted you to ask you to reopen the discussion so that we could figure out what to do with these kinds of articles, as well as let the CfD run its course, as I'm somewhat of a fan of process. I know that you were acting in good faith when you closed it and didn't intend to insult anybody with your closing comments, and I tried to express this. Your responses to my comments made me feel as though you brushed me aside as a problem user. I don't know if you intended them to come across that way; that's simply how they came across to me. I decided to bring the matter to DRV, where the CfD was reopened. I placed a notice on your talk page about the DRV, but you were on wikibreak and your bot archived the notice, and at any rate the CfD reopened after you returned, so you weren't able to comment at the DRV, unfortunately. At that time, I felt that it was a good idea to add myself to the category again so that it wouldn't appear to be empty to people who were discussing it. The Raven also added himself to the category. Drini, unaware of the DRV, deleted the category as well as links to it on our userpages as he was executing the decision of the first CfD. I notified him of what happened and he acknowledged his mistake, and The Raven and I readded ourselves to the category for the same reason that we did at first. (To keep the category from appearing empty to those discussing it and avoid misconceptions about its population.) After this, you reverted my edits to my userpage to Drini's, and after that you removed some boxes on my page that I'd located in seemingly odd places, then blocked me for 3 hours. I assumed this was because you thought I was simply edit warring with Drini. After the block, I decided not to replace the Lobster box that had been on the page as it could disrupt plugins that some users might have, however I put back the "users authorized to edit this page" box. I've decided that if I put that box back, I will name it "users authorized to vandalize this page," because that particular box was for notifying editors who might think that The Raven and other particular users' edits were vandalism. We'd had trouble with this before and I wanted to rectify it. During that time, I also removed the previous unblock request I had, as my block had expired by that time, so it wasn't neccessary. I then posted a comment to the CfD stating that some of the users involved in it often edit under anonymous IP addresses. I then posted a comment to your talk page outlining why I believed that your block had been unneccessary. After these actions, you blocked me for 31 hours for "edit warring" and "disruption," as well as stating that I was in a group of meatpuppets. I assume that the edit warring and disruption claims were based on my replacement of the box on my userpage, which I don't really see as edit warring, as it was the first such revert ever. I purposely didn't replace myself in the category again for fear of being blocked again, however that didn't seem to work. I also found that you blocked The Raven for 24 hours for reverting the edit you made to my userpage because he was "edit warring." Raven didn't attempt to contest the block.
That's basically how I've seen the events so far. I'd like to apologize for creating the category because of all the trouble it's caused both of us. I also would like to apologize for the actions of my friends (the "meatpuppets" as you stated) as they are not as familiar with Wikipedia policies as you or I. I didn't notify them about the CfD, The Raven did. I was hoping that my actions could be considered separately from theirs, as I never intended to "vote stack" in the CfD, which isn't really possible since the CfD is a vote. I'd rather not hold a grudge against you, nor have you hold one against me, because of this situation, so hopefully this illustrates better how I felt about your blocks. I would certainly like to hear your view as well, and more precisely the exact reason that you blocked me on both occassions, and why you felt that the block was justified although it violated policy. (Specifically, the part where it says that administrators in content disputes with users should not block those users.) I feel that it's more likely that you thought that the category was still deleted, although I had notified you that it wasn't. I'm still assuming good faith and hoping that this is a simple misunderstanding that was blown out of proportion, and not you blocking The Raven and I (the sole members of the category up for deletion) to make it appear that the category is empty and sway voters in that manner. I don't hold that view, however it appears that The Raven does, judging from his comments at the CfD.
syphonbyte (t|c) 03:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- It looks like you're not going to respond with your reasoning for blocking me on both occassions, since you've made a number of edits since I first posted this. syphonbyte (t|c) 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Each time I blocked you it was because you had just re-added or re-created the category after warnings not to do so. --Cyde Weys 02:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, shit, I just saw that I did indeed add the category the second time around. That wasn't actually my intention, I only meant to add the box; I suppose I edited an old version, but anyhow I can't really change that. Still, I was re-adding the category because it was on CfD again. There's no reason that I can't add myself to a category just because it's on CfD, is there? I still believe that you should've had somebody else block me if it was that big of a deal, as you were indeed in a content dispute with me over that Category, and blocking a user with whom you're in a content dispute is, as I understand it, a big no-no. syphonbyte (t|c) 02:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- A content dispute? Nope. That only applies to encyclopedia articles. If an administrator is having problems with something on a user's page and the user keeps reverting, the admin needs to do something. I would've protected, but you and Raven were re-adding the category to each other's pages. --Cyde Weys 02:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I can't find a specific place where a content dispute is said to only apply to articles. Categories are certainly content since they are part of the encyclopedia. Also, I did not add the category to The Raven's page on any occassion. He only added it to my page once, after which you blocked him. In fact, I only added the category to my page twice, and Raven did once. The other times that I added it were after Drini mistakenly removed it because he had thought that the first CfD was still standing, and didn't know about the DRV. I also added the category back to my page over such a period of time that on no occassion did I violate WP:3RR. I wasn't exactly edit warring either, as the situation with Drini was resolved, and thus cannot be counted in any "edit warring." Even if I were, there must be somebody to edit war with, which would've been you, so you can't really accuse me of edit warring without incriminating yourself as well. Blocking a user to resolve an "edit war" is not exactly conforming to blocking policy. Also, there was no reason to block me for putting the category on my user page, as it was a valid category that was up for CfD at the time as the previous CfD had been overturned. The fact that you didn't like the category is not a reason to block me for putting it on my page. syphonbyte (t|c) 02:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, are you trying to say that the category "Gangster Wikipedians" is part of the encyclopedia and thus edits dealing with it are necessarily content disputes? I assure you, if I caught anyone trying to add that category to any encyclopedia article I would deal with them very unpleasantly myself. --Cyde Weys 03:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, not at all. I'm just saying that the category can't be put into userspace or anything like that, as you pointed out to me a while ago. I'm fairly sure that blocking policy means in that instance that admins shouldn't block users with whom they are involved in any sort of dispute unless it's blatant vandalism or something like that. Either way, the category was back on CfD and there wasn't any reason that I couldn't put it onto my userpage. syphonbyte (t|c) 03:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
"So, you stuck up for a guy who flagrantly violated policy ..."
I think you are confused. That was you when you stuck up for Kelly Martin. Johntex\talk 04:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Au contraire, Kelly Martin turned out to be right in this, and you and your little sockpuppeting blocked "friend" turned out to be wrong. --Cyde Weys 04:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I do not support in any way Cardsplayer4life using a sock-puppet to evade the block. However, a call for apologies from people who argued against the block ignores the time-line of events. The block occurred first, then the sock-puppetry. Therefore, the sock-puppetry did not lead to the block and the sock-puppetry is irrelevant is considering whether the block was valid or not. The sock-puppetry does not change the fact that the block was invalid. Johntex\talk 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, what the sockpuppetry does is establish character. Whereas you could possibly give the user the benefit of the doubt under WP:AGF and say that the block was unwarranted, now that we actually know what this guy was up to, it is quite clear that the block was correct. When I make mistakes I do apologize, believe it or not. By the way the current block is valid no matter what you may think of the previous one. --Cyde Weys 04:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- First, I agree on the current block. It is warranted.
- However, unless Kelly can read the future, she can't claim that her actions were justified by actions that Card had not taken yet, and which he couldn't have taken if not for Kelly's prior action. If she hadn't blocked him, he couldn't have been evading her block. That does not make either of them right.
- Please consider however the following hypothetical parable: Tommy saves up money to buy a bicycle. He rides it past Bobby's house. Bobby is greedy and wants the bike. Bobby gets his mother, the sheriff, to arrest the kid and impound the bike. But Tommy kid breaks out of jail and throws stones at the Bobby's house, both of which are against the law. The fact that Tommy behaved badly after being falsly arrested does not justify the false arrest. Bobby's mother should not get a reward based upon future bad behavior of Tommy. Johntex\talk 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your metaphor is flawed and doesn't correspond to real-world events at all. Here's what actually happened (no useless bicycle metaphor necessary): some users are edit-warring over the insertion of an against-policy fair use gallery. Kelly Martin leaves a stern warning not to do it or users will be blocked. So a user comes along and does it anyway, and not surprisingly, is blocked. Then, sometime in there, the user promises he won't do it again in an unblock request (which is accepted), while meanwhile logging out to make the same edit. Kelly didn't do anything wrong here while the user did everything wrong. --Cyde Weys 05:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Thank you for your time. Johntex\talk 05:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Keep throwing in your lot with fools and eventually you become indistinguishable from them" — good quote. --Cyde Weys 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm feeling generous so I'll just ignore your implied insult. Johntex\talk 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Cyde, why don't you just stop. You seem to create more fires than you extinguish. David D. (Talk) 16:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I just want to know why some people are constantly siding with trolls and disruptors, and why they continue to do it for many months after pretty much everyone they "stuck up for" earlier was generally denounced by the community at large. Don't they realize that events are not considered in isolation? There are some people who've lost all credibility with the majority of the higher-up admin community because the only thing we've ever seen from them is consistently poor judgement. They might as well not be making comments, because most administrators just ignore them. Look at how increasingly irrelevant Grue has become ... all he seems to do these days is stick up for trolls and demand that every admin he disagrees with be desysopped. Johntex isn't there yet, but he's on his way. Our administrator community has some differences of opinions; that's natural. But it's a shame that we're allowing ourselves to be disrupted so much by outsider trolls. --Cyde Weys 16:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Who are the "higher-up" admin community? Johntex\talk 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The "cabal", basically. You know, the ones making the decisions. --Cyde Weys 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've heard of the cabal, but I've also heard it does not exist. Does one need to violate policy and exhibit extreme rudeness to be a member? Johntex\talk 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Violate policy? Care to give any examples? As for "exhibiting extreme rudeness" ... let's just say some people are more visible than others in getting things accomplished. --Cyde Weys 16:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- So the community has no say? What exactly are you implying here? There is a blacklist of those whose opinion counts for nothing? Not all who disagree with consensus should be considered trolls. So is wikipedia more of a monarchy that it admits too? David D. (Talk) 16:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, not a monarchy. But it certainly isn't a democracy. You can see that in our processes; none of them are really votes. Lots of things are done because they are necessary, even if the community can't see it at the time. There's always going to be a lot of flak raised over new policies or procedures (userboxes, fair use, semi-protection, stable versions, et al), but I trust the people running Wikipedia to make the decisions better than a pseudo-anarchic-democracy of all users. If anything I guess you could say Wikipedia is a republic. --Cyde Weys 16:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've heard of the cabal, but I've also heard it does not exist. Does one need to violate policy and exhibit extreme rudeness to be a member? Johntex\talk 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The "cabal", basically. You know, the ones making the decisions. --Cyde Weys 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm referring to your second to last comment, above, not your general opinion. It seems to be needlessly antagonistic and certainly is not productive given you had already made your point clear. Certainly it was counterproductive with respect to getting johntex to see things from your own perspective.David D. (Talk) 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, I could have handled it better. But you must understand how annoying it is when we are constantly getting backstabbed by fellow admins whose choices of who they ally with are consistently poor. We basically have some "snipers" who latch onto situations with even the appearance of anyone in the "cabal" doing something wrong, and then defend, to the death, the other person, no matter how wrong they are. --Cyde Weys 16:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Who are the "higher-up" admin community? Johntex\talk 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I just want to know why some people are constantly siding with trolls and disruptors, and why they continue to do it for many months after pretty much everyone they "stuck up for" earlier was generally denounced by the community at large. Don't they realize that events are not considered in isolation? There are some people who've lost all credibility with the majority of the higher-up admin community because the only thing we've ever seen from them is consistently poor judgement. They might as well not be making comments, because most administrators just ignore them. Look at how increasingly irrelevant Grue has become ... all he seems to do these days is stick up for trolls and demand that every admin he disagrees with be desysopped. Johntex isn't there yet, but he's on his way. Our administrator community has some differences of opinions; that's natural. But it's a shame that we're allowing ourselves to be disrupted so much by outsider trolls. --Cyde Weys 16:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Keep throwing in your lot with fools and eventually you become indistinguishable from them" — good quote. --Cyde Weys 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Thank you for your time. Johntex\talk 05:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your metaphor is flawed and doesn't correspond to real-world events at all. Here's what actually happened (no useless bicycle metaphor necessary): some users are edit-warring over the insertion of an against-policy fair use gallery. Kelly Martin leaves a stern warning not to do it or users will be blocked. So a user comes along and does it anyway, and not surprisingly, is blocked. Then, sometime in there, the user promises he won't do it again in an unblock request (which is accepted), while meanwhile logging out to make the same edit. Kelly didn't do anything wrong here while the user did everything wrong. --Cyde Weys 05:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
(killing tabs) Wikimedia Foundation is set up as a non-profit foundation with a governing body of the Board of Trustees. It's all in the charter (you might want to read it). Ultimately they are the ones making decisions. If any local wiki (such as en-wiki) comes up with something that goes against our core principles, it will simply be overruled at the Foundation level. That's the real governing body of Wikimedia. The "cabal", as it were, is a group of users who have consistently demonstrated good judgement, and who are relied on by higher-ups for information and advice. Now, turning to Wikimania ... this was the first time in one year since all members of the Board of Trustees as well as many of the users they trust were all in one physical location. Of course they were going to get together to make necessary decisions. Discussions in person work at least ten times better than discussions online. We now sort of have a roadmap for the next several months on many key issues. A lot of it was mentioned in Jimbo's plenary (you might want to listen to that). As for the "cabal" ... there's no formal membership requirements, as it isn't really a cohesive organization. It's just a bunch of individuals who are trusted. It happens in any organization. If you want to be in the "cabal", as it were, prove that you can be trusted by demonstrating good judgement on long-term foundational issues. Here's a hint: sniping at fellow admins who are dealing with fair use issues is not a good idea, because the Foundation takes the whole free content movement very seriously and is more strict about copyright issues than probably most people realize. --Cyde Weys 17:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I guess that answers everything except who the leaders are. The board members are certainly known, but the cabal seems to be secretive. Who are the current members of the cabal that are serving as advisors to the Foundation? Johntex\talk 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The "cabal" doesn't really consist of "advisors" per se, in either a formal or pragmatic fashion. The "cabal" is more about people who can get stuff done to further the Foundation's goals. Do you think it a coincidence that following Wikimania we are suddenly taking a much more strong approach on fair use issues? As for who is "in" the cabal, it varies depending on who you ask, but you might want to look over all of the images from Wikimania (both on Commons and on Flickr); that should give you a rough start. --Cyde Weys 17:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- There were two main reasons for me starting an RfC on Kelly Martin. I hope you will give them both a little more consideration. It would be easy for on onlooker to get the impression that what is happening is that "cabal" members like to circle the wagon around one of their own, instead of considering whether a "cabal" member may have actually made a mistake.
- The first reason for the RfC is to encourage transparency of process. Surely that is a good thing. If 100 Wikipedia editors come together and have a good discussion on policy, surely they can at least take the time to codify the new-found policy into a policy page (not a Talk page) before they act on it.
- The second is to encourage civility. Surely the project is not well served by a member of the "cabal" acting with such obvious rudeness.
- As to "sniping" at people, the RfC on Kelly Martin is a valid process. It is the first I've ever filed, and I filed in in good faith. I think it is interesting that the "cabal" would now like to get rid of something that may occasional serve to point out their shortcomings. I suggest the "cabal" needs ot lighten up. No one is infallible.
- If an editor messes up, I'll tell them/block them/report them as seems appropriate. If that person is a brand new editor, so be it. If they are a defrocked arbitrator, so be it. If that keeps me out of the "cabal", then I'll just have to stay out of that little country club. I won't compromise my principles to be part of the "in crowd". Johntex\talk 17:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The process you're describing isn't how policy is actually made. And the fair use gallery thing has been festering for several weeks, with no one really willing to step forward and declare, "This is how our Foundation-level principles apply to this issue, and this is the way it will be from now on." Kelly did that. If some incivility is necessary to get the point across that the argument is coming to a close and things are changing immediately, so be it. I'm not necessarily say it was necessary, but what's done is done, and the climate has changed to the point where people should be realizing that fair use galleries go against our freely-redistributable encyclopedia principles. The RFC just turned into a battleground that caused more harm than good with lots of people sniping back and forth at each other in an unproductive fashion. If you take issue with Kelly's actions I would suggest that you contact her in private. RFCs inevitably never work on issues like this, as they just provide a huge forum for the trolls and distruptors to erupt dissension into, sowing seeds of malcontent. --Cyde Weys 17:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- As the RfC shows, I contacted Kelly on her Talk page and was not able to resolve the issue. The fact that he first post was under the heading "enough" and that a subsequent post basically said something like "discuss all you want but it won't make a difference", it was clear that one-on-one discussion with Kelly was not going to be productive. If Kelly doesn't like RfC's filed on her, then she can try being more conversive/constructive/collaborative to begin with.
- As for contacting her in private, I have nothing to hide. If her actions are noble, then she should have no need to hide either. I prefer on wiki discussions for transparancy, accountability, etc. Johntex\talk 21:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The process you're describing isn't how policy is actually made. And the fair use gallery thing has been festering for several weeks, with no one really willing to step forward and declare, "This is how our Foundation-level principles apply to this issue, and this is the way it will be from now on." Kelly did that. If some incivility is necessary to get the point across that the argument is coming to a close and things are changing immediately, so be it. I'm not necessarily say it was necessary, but what's done is done, and the climate has changed to the point where people should be realizing that fair use galleries go against our freely-redistributable encyclopedia principles. The RFC just turned into a battleground that caused more harm than good with lots of people sniping back and forth at each other in an unproductive fashion. If you take issue with Kelly's actions I would suggest that you contact her in private. RFCs inevitably never work on issues like this, as they just provide a huge forum for the trolls and distruptors to erupt dissension into, sowing seeds of malcontent. --Cyde Weys 17:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The "cabal" doesn't really consist of "advisors" per se, in either a formal or pragmatic fashion. The "cabal" is more about people who can get stuff done to further the Foundation's goals. Do you think it a coincidence that following Wikimania we are suddenly taking a much more strong approach on fair use issues? As for who is "in" the cabal, it varies depending on who you ask, but you might want to look over all of the images from Wikimania (both on Commons and on Flickr); that should give you a rough start. --Cyde Weys 17:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi there!
Hi! We've never met before, but I've seen you around and am looking for a bit of advice in regards to Category:Rouge_admins. Hopefully you can help me out (I was going to ask Lar about this, but it seems as if he's on wikibreak at the moment). I'm debating opening it up as a WP:CFD. I understand the humour, however is it really appropriate in an encyclopedia? I think you were involved in a similar discussion of Category:Gangster Wikipedians or a similar category, and am basically asking if you think it's appropriate. I'd rather just get an explanation from a user that places him/herself in that category before leaving it to process. Thanks in advance and I look forward to hearing from you. Cheers! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about? You only provided a red link and no context? Please give me more information. --Cyde Weys 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The categories weren't linked properly (it actually put you in the gangster wikipedians category, Cyde). I fixed it :) Cowman109Talk 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Bring it to Categories for deletion, I would support deleting it. Despite being in it, I really do hate all non-encyclopedic and non-maintenance categories. --Cyde Weys 18:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, things certainly move fast on your talk page! I just ran into two edit conflicts. Sorry, I just realised that I used a colon instead of a (whatever | is called). I'm not quite sure if you were involved in a discussion pertaining to a Gangster Wikipedians category, and I apologise if you've no idea what I'm talking about. Basically, there was a category entitled "Gangster Wikipedians" or something similiar and was recently deleted. I was wondering if the same logic applies to the Rouge Admins category. I hope this clears things up and thanks for responding so quickly hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I'll go ahead and run it through the process. Thanks again for the quick response and thanks to Cowman109 for fixing the redlinks! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem! (Decided to spontaneously use a light red signature to make Cyde happy in case he stumbles upon my RFA *cough*) Cowman109Talk 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was responsible for deleting "Gangster Wikipedians" (multiple times actually), and did take a fair amount of flak for it, though I think the main user who created it now does understand why it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 18:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, technically you deleted the category itself only once, you removed it from my userpage a few times when it was back on CfD. Anyhow, I'm obviously not going to recreate it after being blocked twice over it. syphonbyte (t|c) 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Cards / AN/I
Cyde, I'm sorry if my comment on AN/I offended you; I certainly didn't mean to accuse you of anything else than getting a little overheated and bringing more heat than light to the discussion. That's why I would like to ask you to step back and let others handle this. As WP:COOL says, there are plenty of competent admins that can take care of cases like this. And let me repeat again, this case isn't nearly as urgent as the heated comments here make it look like. Wikipedia won't break if you let this one go, even if you feel your course of action is entirely justified. — mark ✎ 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
(I originally posted this comment on WP:AN/I, but then I realized your talk page is a better place for it). Kind regards, — mark ✎ 22:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
While I find it utterly ridiculous that there are people arguing to unblock this troll, I am not going to continue arguing over it; I've made my point that he shouldn't be unblocked and I'll leave it at that. Of course, I shall be watching him very carefully, and if he does the same kind of thing again he'll get an even longer block. --Cyde Weys 22:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
...that proposal
I put it up here. rootology (T) 22:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Just asking
Uh, what'd you mean by this? Herostratus 03:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Just as confirmation, "LOL" stands for "Laughing out loud". --Cyde Weys 04:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Er, I know all that. My question was more along the lines of, were you laughing in our faces at the idea that an admin could be desysopped, and if not, what other explanation you might offer. Herostratus 14:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
...is getting rather long again, if you'd like to come help. ;) —Mira 07:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Your bot screwed up my page...
Your bot did this to my Userpage. I'd rather you left a talkpage message for me to change whatever needs chenging than set a badly programmed bot to do it. (now to figure out now to fix it without reverting all the changes) - an annoyed MTC 15:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Those two categories were renamed per WP:CFD, which is a process for renaming categories. It works fine for encyclopedic categories, but every now and again it looks like some weirdly formatted userspace categories slip through. Again, why is it necessary to have user categories for stuff like "Wikipedians who play Mario Kart DS"? --Cyde Weys 15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Eh up.
Per the conversation about Gangster Wikipedians, Hoopydink nominated Category:Rouge admins for deletion. Not sure how you feel about that, he's implied you suggested or supported deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 10#Category:Rouge_admins. I think a rename would be good, but given the people in it there does appear to be at lest some encyclopaedic purpose to it. Just zis Guy you know? 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
???
[1] WHAT are you talking about. What edit of mine are you referencing? Karwynn (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize, I took your delayed response to my comment to be an indication that you were just drive-by shooting me, of sorts. I restored your comment. Karwynn (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss
This is currently being discussed in its talk page in the 23rd header. Please add your input if you wish to continue reverting. Karwynn (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
For helping out with your bot on CFD. Much appreciated! --Kbdank71 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Astonished and shocked
Please don't fragment discussions. I will continue replying on your talk page and you should reply there as well. --Cyde Weys 18:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, waiting for your answer. I've explained there that an anon IP vandal added the bollocks thing. --Uncle Ed 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I thought you were going to continue replying. I'm still waiting, about the 'bollocks' thing. --Uncle Ed 21:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Age of the Earth
Excuse me, Cyde, but why do you say that the scientifically-determined age of the earth is a "fact"? That's saying that it's been proven, and science hasn't ever proven anything, so that statement is also false. If you think it's not, please explain why. Scorpionman 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, what are you claiming that the age of the planet is? Please include what scientific methodology was used to make that measurement, and also provide citations to scientific literature. --Cyde Weys 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't really want to get into this argument now but here's some methodologies for Scorpionman's case. Some of those points Talk Origins may refute but the main points are points #1 & #2. Good luck to you two as you debate.--Jphl 19:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, you linked me to Answers in Genesis I see. Nice one. Too bad they're not scientifically credible at all, and are merely fabricating whatever evidence they think is necessary to justify their a priori assumptions based on a single tome. --Cyde Weys 19:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Then try this one: EarthAge, or do you consider all creationist sites uncredable? If you do, then there's really no point to this. If you don't, then please be more specific. Just curious, what did they fabricate? --Jphl 22:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh give me a break, the best you can come up with is a dark mattter argument? please, that is so 1990s. Try reading about Massive compact halo objects, neutrino mass, or Cryogenic Dark Matter Search--152.163.100.9 22:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, 152.163.100.9 AOL User:
- What do you mean?
- If you would go to the AiG site I put in my first response, you'd realize that I'm not referring to the dark matter material on the page.
--Jphl 22:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wind up galaxies and Oort cloud denial? --152.163.100.9 22:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, referencing wind up.--66.57.24.120 22:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please check
Hello, could you take a look at Category:Carnatic music instruments. Somebody has written an article (possibly a copyvio) there. Two users, including myself have been trying to remove it. However, the AntiVandalBot immediately reverts, thus preventing any erasure of data from the page. Thanks in advance. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK19:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Got your message
So how do I create new ubx's without using template space? --RageSamurai 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[in response to last message] Ugh. Thanks.
Yeah...no. I'm not good as a WP editor. Besides, what's there to write about? Apparently these people think I'm some sort of genius possessing an IQ of 294 and endless editing time... --RageSamurai 19:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You certainly don't need an IQ of 294 to edit ... just find something that you're interested and work on improving it. Even if you're not a good writer, if you have good technical ability, you can help do work with encyclopedic templates and such. --Cyde Weys 20:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Good technical ability? Definitely not me; I can more or less understand HTML but that's it. --RageSamurai21655 20:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess editing Wikipedia just isn't for everyone. For what it's worth we have something like 200 times as many readers as we do editors, so you're certainly not in the minority. --Cyde Weys 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
"So how do I create new ubx's without using template space? --RageSamurai 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)" Stupid question. I know userboxes are just little template thingies to enhance our userpages, and those have to be relevant to the Wikipedia project, but what if I joined the UBX WIkiProject and created them using my userpage space? I heard of a guy named MiraLuka who did so and look at them... (please respond on my talk page) --RageSamurai21655 13:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Cydebot and page formatting
Hey Cyde. I was looking at my userpage when I noticed the formatting had been changed (Well, actually, totally destroyed). The history showed that your bot had attempted to order the categories contained within my page and it changed the formating of the page itself. Specifically some of my code leaked into the main page (I got a beautiful blue background for about three minutes).
I was wondering if you could tell me what exactly I should do with my userpage to prevent further "Bot-editing" from Cyde (I had to revert it, so I don't know if you have a vengeful bot or not yet). I got some of it, but I'd rather here it from a human being at the moment.
Regards. Logical2u 19:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the categories used in userboxes are poorly named, and the WP:CFD process makes no distinction between different types of categories (frankly, user categories should really just be deleted). So they end up suggesting new names for user categories and Cydebot goes through and modifies the category names on userpages. Apparently, the way of changing categories on articles doesn't always work properly on userpages or something. I would suggest removing user categories from your page, or if you want to keep them, move them all to the bottom of your page like you would see on normal articles. --Cyde Weys 20:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
RE: New Userboxes
Thanks for the note. I noticed that earlier today and we've already addressed the issue. The College football Wikiproject will be userfying all of those boxes over the next week. I hadn't read the details of the German Solution before creating the boxes. Anyway, thanks for bringing it up and give us a spot of time to get it solved. z4ns4tsu\talk 20:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I'm not blaming you for intentionally creating userbox templates against WP:GUS, it's just that the wiki is so big and we haven't done a very good job of communicating the new state of affairs. --Cyde Weys 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Finding and eliminating fair use galleries
User:Kotepho/reports/fair_use_per_article, not exactly what you were looking for, but might be useful. Kotepho 20:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Cydebot issues
Hi Cyde, I noticed your bot made some sort of formatting mistake when it fixed categories on my userbox page (see here). I'm not sure what happened, but the page is a mess now. I don't want to revert the all of the changes, I just want to fix the formatting errors. Can you help? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
OK not urgent, just strange
Strange This bot has reinserted the new category into most, but not all the underground stations on the Glasgow Subway. Hmmmm. It also seems the new category does not seem to exist, even though you can go there and see the stations!?. Simply south 21:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, i just created the category, however, i am still confused over Cydebot and what will happen with Category:Glasgow Subway tube stations. And of course the other stations when sorting out the category. What will happen? (not rhetorical). Simply south 22:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Template:User DAoC
Cyde,
You deleted a master template for users who play the MMORPG DAoC. I would like to know why this was done without going through the TfD process. If there is a problem with a user template, you needed to contact those involved with it first. It was NOT inappropriately created in template space. It is a template, which belongs in template space. All templates, big or small, belong in template space. I am very disappointed that you did not allow me and others the chance to discuss this. Please restore it. - LA @ 21:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. This template replaced three which had already been deleted at the original author's request, therefor it has no suitable replacement in template space. If a template has no template space replacement available, then it should not be deleted without going through the TfD process. - LA @ 21:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see WP:GUS. No more non-encyclopedic userboxes are to be created in Template: space. --Cyde Weys 22:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As GUS states, it is not policy. I respectfully ask that you restore this template. - LA @ 23:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
hello
I am a legitamte new user and i would just like to point out that some very bad people are using wikipedia to push an anti-american sedisous POV and they should be blocked before homeland security is forced to stop wikipedia's sedition and evality--Bob the nob wence fan 22:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
user EagleStubs
I'm sure you get too many complaints about this, as is, but: WP:GUS is not a criteria for speedy deletion that I've ever heard of, and you just deleted a WikiProject user template. I'm unsure if I should assume that this was an error, or if WikiProject templates are considered unencyclopedic, so... please clarify? Luna Santin 01:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- As tempting as it is to go behind your back, as you apparently went behind mine, I can understand why it would be impractical for you notify so many users of your deletions, and I'm trying to stay as calm as possible about this. I've posted {{user EagleStubs}} to DRV. Thanks for your time, whatever comes of this. Luna Santin 03:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see that you've re-deleted the template on the same grounds and without any additional comment, despite unanimous consensus at DRV that your actions are/were unsupported by policy; please at least pay other editors the minor respect of discussing your actions --
frankly, I've lost a lot of respect for you, due to your apparently complete unwillingness to respond to me in any way. Deletion is one thing, but completely ignoring the community and the polite invitations of your fellow editors is something else. Please join the discussion.Luna Santin 01:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see that you've re-deleted the template on the same grounds and without any additional comment, despite unanimous consensus at DRV that your actions are/were unsupported by policy; please at least pay other editors the minor respect of discussing your actions --
Sorry, this is actually the first that I saw this message ... my talk page has been very busy of late. Anyway, as for the EagleStubs sorting userbox, let me take care of it. --Cyde Weys 01:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, my apologies, then; I jumped the gun. And, thanks. Luna Santin 01:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Alrighty, I've moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub removal/Userbox and fixed all of the links. It is preferred that WikiProject-related userboxes be stored under the projectspace of the project to which they refer; thus, anyone reading the source code on your userboxes page knows immediately what it refers to. Again, I'm sorry for my previous handling of this, I honestly didn't see any of your two prior messages. It has been a very busy night. --Cyde Weys 01:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Cyde, several editors have been complaining that your bot is breaking their userpages when removing categories. The complaints don't seem to have anything to do with the removal of the category, but that you are also doing "general cleanup" type operations. Can you reconfigure your bot to not make cleanup edits such as moving white space or links around in the User: namespace? There are also a few queries on Cydebot's talk page that you may want to reply to if you have not already. Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 01:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you run the bot again?
This category, Category:Neolithic cultures of China should've been moved to Category:Neolithic cultures in China instead, per CfD. Thanks--Confuzion 03:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Formatting issue
Hello! I thought I should notify you about a problem with AntiVandalBot's revert notification messages. When the bot reverts vandalism on a category, it sends a message that isnt formatted properly, thus resulting in the page being added to that particular category (Category:Carnatic music instruments in this case). The same thing happened here by Tawkerbot. I've notified Tawker (talk · contribs) too on this. Hope you guys can adjust the script to avoid this. Cheers!-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK07:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Deletion of Userboxes
Rather than deleting the userboxes that I had created, it would have been nice to give me some kind of advance notice about the German Solution (which not everybody is automatically familiar with). This way, if necessary, I could have moved them to my own userspace rather than what I'm faced with now, which is either to create them all over again in my userspace or to just say, "forget it" and move on (which is what I'm leaning towards).
I created the userboxes that I did to complete already existing userbox categories, those that don't fall under touchy subjects such as religion, politics, etc. It strikes me as odd that you chose to delete only the ones I had created, and not to completely wipe out the category itself. I could have userfied the lot all at once, but now I doubt I'll even bother.
It's one thing to do your job as an administrator and inform people who aren't up to speed with all the technicalities of userboxes, userspace and so forth; it's another thing to act like a jackass and not give me any information or time to correct my mistake. Please understand that while I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and have a great deal of time and respect for its staff, I am more than a little annoyed. Greg the White Falcon 16:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's a little hint: calling people jackasses doesn't exactly make them want to help you. --Cyde Weys 17:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
From what I'm reading, you're not exactly willing to "help" anyone, merely resorting to sweeping deletions of templates and userboxes at will. Read the heading on the GUS yourself; you were out of line in acting as if this were an official policy, ad I ask that the userboxes be temporarily restored so they can be userfied. Greg the White Falcon 19:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- The reason so many userboxes are being userfied and deleted from template space is because they are not relevant to the Wikipedia project. This has been an ongoing debate for many months now, and I personally don't have any sympathy for anyone who continues to try to create these unhelpful userboxes in template space. Wikipedia is not here for you to create userboxes; it is here to produce a free encyclopedia. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for emphasizing a focus on the actual goal of the project. --Cyde Weys 01:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- This user does not appear to be purposely creating userboxes in template space; he just didn't know about WP:GUS and then after his templates were deleted, found out about it and wanted to move the userboxes into userspace. Of course, calling Cyde a jackass isn't a good way to accomplish this. syphonbyte (t|c) 02:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- After a somewhat roundabout review of the WP:GUS I guess I'll have to agree, although from what I can tell reading the talk page the solution isn't yet finalized (or pretty). Perhaps instead of speedy deletion, which is certainly more likely to confuse and arouse ire, you could append a message... Something along the lines of "The page location of this userbox is based on old guidelines. It is recommended that it be moved into personal userspace based on the German Userbox Solution." That's long enough to stick out and get some attention. If you wanted to provide a little explanation, you could also add: "The GUS is a comprimise reached to end controversy over the non-encyclopedic content of userboxes," or similar. I believe most users will willingly place them elsewhere given opportunity, but are likely to get very annoyed if their userpages are suddenly full of angry red text. —OrinR 08:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Template:User timpani
FYI - Noticed that you deleted this. Looks like a db-repost. --Brian G (Talk) 04:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Template:User OS:Microsoft Windows (textonly)
This was a recently deleted page---please undelete so it may be copied and moved into userspace. -OrinR 07:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you help me out on this? I gave this account a username block, then unblocked it after I saw no one did anything about it. Also, it just poped up on user creation log, so: am I dumb and missing something? Because I'm really lost right now. Thanks, Yanksox 13:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:GUS
You should probably go and take out all of the music userboxes... The Template:User Dance is in a public namespace, and Template:User Popping is just a style of dance. They're both dance userboxes. It's like saying there should be a Template:User Computer, but, not a Template:User Linux, because linux is a portion of computing. Just a thought. I think you're going to have a lot of work. See: Template:User popping. Also out of courtesy, you might want to put the template code in the user's discussion page, so that they can put the userbox back into their namespace. Although the goal is a publicly editable encyclopedia. It's nice to see userboxes so at a glance you can see users who might share the same interests, and therefore can work collaboratively. Anyways, no hard feelings, I moved my userbox, and will put anymore I create in my own namespace.
Protocoldroid 18:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Template restoration
I was wondering if you could temporarily restore the Template:User notability hurts so that I can subst: it it can be migrated to userspace, as the delete has added some angry red text to my userpage. Thanks. --Daniel Olsen 19:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Please delete
Template:GUS UBX to Rfrisbietalk 19:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
talk page
You reverted me on my talk page! How rude are you! --Brandnewuser 19:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Userboxes
Quoting a response of yours from above:
"Please see WP:GUS. No more non-encyclopedic userboxes are to be created in Template: space. --Cyde Weys 22:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)"
Ignoring for the moment that WP:GUS clearly states that it isn't policy. What it is designed for is controversial userboxes that foster advocacy (such as religion and politics). Not ALL userboxes.
Quote of the very first section of text in WP:GUS:May 27, 2006 The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results.
Clearly says: Political or other campaigns.
Quote:"It should be noted that use of [userboxes related to beliefs, ideologies, viewpoints on controversial issues, and ethical convictions] is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time." - Wikipedia:Jimbo on Userboxes
Again clearly states the parameters (the bracket is his use, not mine).
Quote:"Regarding at least the political templates, I would like to raise, gently, a different issue. I have concern about people massing together in groups based on political affiliations at Wikipedia.
For me, when I enter Wikipedia, I try to leave my personal politics at the door. I try to leave my personal opinions about religion, etc. at the door. Here, I am a Wikipedian. And this inspires in me a feeling of serious quiet thoughtful reflection. A mood of kindness and love. A mood of helpfulness and productivity. Neutrality and _getting it right_in the company of others who are doing the same, this is what I'm here for.
Outside, I may be an advocate. But here, I am a Wikipedian.
--Jimbo" - [2]
Making it clear it's a concern about advocacy.
Userboxes that show topical interest, or knowledge, or current status of the user (happy, sad, only child, etc.) are clearly not a part of WP:GUS.
I bring this up because, as I read your talk page, you're taking actions adverse to concensus - {{User DAoC}} for example. And assuming good faith, I'm presuming this is merely a misunderstanding on your part. Hope this helps : ) - Jc37 22:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this may be a misunderstanding on your part. The point of WP:GUS is that userboxes are userfied, not that dozens of new unecyclopedic ones are created in template space every day. --Cyde Weys 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not what is said in the examples I gave above, further examples on the rest of those and other pages, including several RfCs. I appreciate your opinion, but that's not what I'm reading. Can you substantiate your opinion? - Jc37 00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:GUS has been in effect for over two months now. Part of userfying userboxes is ensuring that no new ones are created in template space. Template space was created for templates that help write the encyclopedia ... all of this non-encyclopedic stuff (when will "This user plays DAOC" ever be used on an article?) has to be migrated to userspace. --Cyde Weys 00:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not disputing WP:GUS. I just think you may misunderstand its purpose. but that aside...
Again... While I appreciate that this is your opinion, I was wondering upon what do you substantiate it? As for the example of whether something will be used in the encyclopedia, there are many answers (which have been previously given), including articles about DAoC, RPGs, MMORPGs, etc., as well as simply that wikipedia is a community. A community with a goal (see the 5 pillars), but a community nonetheless. Otherwise, the simple definition about what is useful to an encyclopedia, would see things like the village pump, and the signpost deleted.
But this all begs the initial question. Upon what do you base your opinion? - Jc37 00:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Your block on Nathan
Hi Cyde.
I noticed that you blocked Nathan since he claimed he was not coming back. However, many users have returned to Wikipedia after making such claims (like Moe Epsilon, for instance). In addition, I didn't see anything in WP:BLOCK about your blocking reasoning. Anyway, I'd be interested in what you had to say about the above reasoning.
As always, happy editing! -- Where 00:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It's time for him to move on and he's admitted as such. He just seems to have problems leaving on his own accord, so I'm giving him help. This will be best for everyone involved. --Cyde Weys 00:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. I've undone the block after an anon mentioned it on WP:AN. Any user who voluntarily leaves Wikipedia is free to come back, so we should leave that option open for him. --Conti|✉ 00:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- personally, I favour the lifelong block, but then, what do I know? DiLuna25 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- We try not to if possible DiLuna. If you're wondering who the anon on WP:AN was that reported the block, it was me. Hey, I guess I do come back after leaving, like Where said. :) — The King of Kings 00:58 August 14 '06 00:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Email from me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Resolution
Well, it seems that you aren't going to acknowledge that you unfairly blocked me on two occassions for adding myself to a category that existed and was at CfD, and you haven't exactly been helpful in reaching an understanding between us about why you did it. I do have a theory that relates to your deletion of numerous Userbox templates, which is that you believe that nothing that doesn't directly improve the encyclopedia ought to be deleted. (On a side note: I believe that a number of users expressed concern over your heavy participation in the userbox debates during your RfA; you seemed to assure that you were taking a break from those debates. I suppose after you gained your adminship, you hopped back in and expressed your previous opinion by deleting various userbox templates, whether or not they were userfied. This is simply my opinion, but it's pretty obvious based on your talk page alone.) I respect that opinion, however when it gets out of control, you ought to at least acknowledge your mistake. I don't want to take this to Mediation or Request for Comment or something like that, because I believe that two people can be perfectly civil and resolve their disputes on their own, however both parties have to work towards that, something I haven't seen much of from you beyond picking out statements from my comments and attacking them rather than taking the message as a whole and responding to it. syphonbyte (t|c) 03:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you are still persuing this. Let it go. --Cyde Weys 03:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps the fact that I am concerned for the encyclopedia as a whole when admins can ban users for making legitimate edits. (Especially when they have a related bias which other users expressed concern over before the user ever became an admin.) syphonbyte (t|c) 03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
At this point you're just holding a grudge. That's not good for the encyclopedia either. Let it go. I'm not bothering you anymore. --Cyde Weys 03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I hold no grudge against you, that's against everything that I believe in, but I won't get into that. Rather, I'm just requesting an apology, which I think is warranted considering the 34 hours I was unable to edit for no legitimate reason. One user "holding a grudge" isn't nearly as bad for the encyclopedia as one admin pushing his views about the encyclopedia in ways that are against policy, despite users expressing concern over this before they were ever admin. Hopefully it's not that bad, but it's rather difficult to conclude otherwise when reviewing your edits over a long period of time. Unfortunately, I'm not totally clueless and have been around for quite a while and seen a lot of work (good and otherwise) that you've done here. I say unfortunately, because had you blocked some other user (such as The Raven) who didn't have such an extensive knowledge of policy and previous debates, as well as your very own work, then they wouldn't have made much of a big deal about it. syphonbyte (t|c) 03:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I cannot apologize because I do not think I did anything wrong. I deleted that category and you repeatedly recreated it and readded yourself. I gave you a short block as a warning; I honestly thought that would be the end of it. Imagine my surprise when I saw that you had readded the category again. That's what the majority of the 34 hours blocked came from ... you doing something after you had been warned against it and after you had already been blocked for it. --Cyde Weys 03:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- You deleted the category and I brought it to DRV, which I notified you of on several occassions. The deletion was overturned and the CfD reopened, thus I was not wrong in recreating it or adding myself to it as it wasn't deleted at the time. I don't believe that blocking policy allows admins to block users simply because they are in a category that the admin doesn't happen to like very much. Blocking me multiple times, as well as Raven, and then removing us from the category meant that there were no users in that category during the CfD for it; this could very easily have caused people to assume that it was empty and want to delete it for that reason. Whether or not this was your intention is impossible for me to decide, and I doubt that it was anyhow, but it could have easily been an unfortunate side effect. syphonbyte (t|c) 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep of redirect Trencher (bread)
I was hoping you could expand on our discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#What's up with saving page move history? since I noticed you were the keeping admin. What is there in the Trencher (bread) history that is not in the Trencher (tableware) history aside from the RfD and CSD stuff that pertains solely to the redirect?
Also, I'm a little surprised you closed the DRV discussion early considering only one more comment was made since it was relisted. Or was it not a DRV and the discussion was just a continuation of the previous one? I'm just trying to understand the process better; I've got no problem with the redirect staying or anything. Feel free to reply on this page if you prefer. BigNate37(T) 03:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What DRV discussion? I wasn't aware of any DRV discussion. Anyway, Trencher (bread) was kept not because of anything in its history but because it seems to me to be a valid target that someone familiar with our disambiguation scheme might look for, considering many trenchers were apparently made out of bread. --Cyde Weys 03:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I was assuming it might have been DRV based on its reopening after deletion. Anyways, thanks for your reply, it cleared it up succinctly for me. BigNate37(T) 04:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Your deletion
Cyde, you deleted a userbox I created. Can you explain why, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I created {{User PIIR}} for the new WikiProject Power in international relations (WP:PIIR). If it HAD to go, can you please tell me if there is a way to see the stuff I had in there before it was deleted. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Cyde, I thought the userbox problems were confined to those that promoted or advertised political or other divisions. Userboxes about Wikipedia preferences and so on are fine, as I understood it anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Slim, you didn't cite which userbox it was, so I don't really have any information to go on. Nobleeagle, the preferred location of WikiProject-related userboxes is in projectspace at a location such as "Wikipedia:WikiProject BlahBlah/Userbox". This way it stays out of template space and it is immediately clear which WikiProject it belongs to just looking at any page's source code that transcludes it (whereas "User PIIR") is very vague. The point is to get as many userboxes out of template space as necessary; most of them are going into userspace but the project-related ones really do belong in Wikipedia: space. Then just transclude them as you would any others. --Cyde Weys 14:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
A portal created recently by Mallimak (talk · contribs) - the Orkney Portal - has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at:
Thanks. --Mais oui! 09:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I was referred to you by another editor who deleted a few pointers to this userfied template manually. Any chance your bot could finish the job? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Turns out Cydebot was hit by an autoblock on AntiVandalBot, which delayed his CFD work ... I'll get around to this work as soon as the CFD stuff is complete. --Cyde Weys 16:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
August Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
cydebot requests
Hi Cyde, I've noticed your bot is saving people a lot of time for repetitive edits. Can I place requests for future cydebot edits here, or is there an official page for such requests? David D. (Talk) 17:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is probably the best place ... and it's certainly the fastest way to reach me. No other page raises that unmissable yellow banner on the top of my screen, for instance. --Cyde Weys 17:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Good point! The following three edits would help speed along the process of correcting all the wikilinks that are now incorrect due to the page move of Athletics to Athletics (track and field).
- From: {{MedalSport | Women's [[Athletics]]}}
- To: {{MedalSport | Women's [[Athletics (track and field)|Athletics]]}}
- From: {{MedalSport | Men's [[Athletics]]}}
- To: {{MedalSport | Men's [[Athletics (track and field)|Athletics]]}}
- From: [[athletics|athletic]] (track and field)
- To: [[athletics (track and field)]]
I can handle the first two, I'm not necessarily the third one is something that should be done in an automated fashion though. How many articles really used that exact phrase anyway? --Cyde Weys 17:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops obviously did not check the edit to give the nowiki code. The last one appears to be on all the track and field related events. I can do that manually if there is an issue with it causing problems. If you can do the first two, that will be great, i suspect there an many in that category although i have not actually checked the correct number. David D. (Talk) 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh okay, I didn't realize the third was so widely used, I'll take care of that too then. Luckily all of the stuff you've given me can be handled with some custom regex and the what links here page generator. There's a bit of a queue though ... Cydebot is currently going through WP:CFDW and then he has to unlink {{WikiProject 911TM}}. Busy busy day. Oh, and it doesn't help that Cydebot started off the day with an autoblock from AntiVandalBot (same server). --Cyde Weys 17:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could I change the request? I just happened to notice it while looking at something else on your talk page. We're trying to make those links as specific as possible to the Olympics vs. just directing them to the page on Athletics.
- From: {{MedalSport | Women's [[Athletics]]}}
- To: {{MedalSport | Women's [[Athletics at the Summer Olympics|athletics]]}}
- From: {{MedalSport | Men's [[Athletics]]}}
- To: {{MedalSport | Men's [[Athletics at the Summer Olympics|athletics]]}}
- Thanks! Let me know if you have any questions. --Sue Anne 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure that {{MedalSport}} is only used on Olympics-related pages? If it's used anywhere else, those changes you've suggested will cause some serious issues. --Cyde Weys 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. Sorry. rootology (T) 17:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thermographic images of animals
Hello Cyde,
I'm very interested in the subject of thermoregulation. I saw that Wikipedia has this area very good covered. We made a pretty big collection of thermographic images of animals, mainly for educational purposes. I was wondering if some of them could be interesting for the biology-portal. You can find a lot of examples at www.nutscode.com. I'm not a frequent wikipedia-user (yet), so I don't realy know where to start and who to ask.
Greatings,
Arno Vlooswijk info@nutscode.com
Those images are very nice, but unfortunately they are released with a license that is incompatible with Wikipedia. Those images are under an "education only" license, whereas Wikipedia requires licenses that fully allow commercial works, such as GFDL or CC-by-sa. --Cyde Weys 19:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The Nathan affair
I'm going to leave roughly this same note on Mackensen's talk page.
At the point that I started seeing what was going on, it was clear that everyone in the world had already commented, that the information was "out there", etc. The cat cannot be forced back into the bag.
You're partially right, I am launching complaints about various administrators. I am doing so because I believe the admin misbehavior in this case was serious and uncalled for. You and Mackensen both acted irresponsibly, in my opinion, and sufficiently badly enough that I believe that both of you needed to be called on it, in public.
I have not, that I recall, had any concerns about Mackensen previously, and only very minor ones about you. Both of you are, in general and as a rule, good administrators who contribute very positively to WP. This is not about expressing any sort of pre-existing dislike for either of you (or the other admins I was complaining about). My complaints are specific to your actions in this incident.
Nobody who was in a position of authority or responsibility with WP should have commented on the situation to the degree that it was discussed. The information probably would have come out anyways, but there is a big difference between "Moe is saying that Nathan was blocked because..." and "Cyde and Mackensen and Kelly have indicated....". You all essentially put into public an unofficial official position which had way too much information in it.
It it unlikely that information will stay truly secret. Having parts of it leak out is probably unavoidable. Having Wikipedia's community structure via some admins take an official public stance and put some of that information out there with the apparent backing of the community structure is very, very bad. It makes us look irresponsible, vindictive, and unprofessional. If there were to be media coverage, selective use of administrator quotes from the AN discussion could do serious damage to WP credibility.
As I said in AN: the public comments should have been limited to "This is an Office matter, we can't comment.".
There should be a formal policy which states that for serious incidents, they should be kicked to Office without any further public comment than that action has happened. I would have hoped that people would have already understood how important that is, but apparently not yet. So it needs to get formalized.
I would prefer that you understand that I see this as having been a very serious problem. It might have been more politic for me to wait a couple of days to point it out and bring up the formal policy. I don't want you to feel that I'm attacking you in general - in my experience, you've been a great part of Wikipedia working smoothly. But I feel very strongly that this event shouldn't happen again. And that probably requires a formal policy.
Ideally I would like to ultimately have your support for the above policy. I hope that you can understand why I am so concerned about what happened and why I feel it needs to not happen again.
Georgewilliamherbert 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
How did I act irresponsibly? I didn't even release any information. I just said that people really did not want to be involved in this. --Cyde Weys 19:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- ...And that people should contact you privately for more details. Those details should not have been available to anyone but Office (in the form of whoever Office really is at the moment; practically Danny or Jimbo might well have just had the same set of people handle it, I know). It should not have been implied that anyone other than "Office" was going to be brought into the loop.
- You yourself didn't then post those additional details, but others did, and the implication that you made makes it look like a wide cabal of admins ended up gossiping about it, as opposed to a minimal quiet investigation and response by "Office".
- Even if you just meant to say "senior admins / office staff can contact me privately for more details", there was an appearance that you were the root of a lot of the internal info flow and then sideways comment/discussion by other admins. Georgewilliamherbert 19:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- You doth assume too much. I only even provided details to one other user via email, and that was an admin. --Cyde Weys 19:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Admins have to avoid more than impropriety; they have to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The overall pattern of admin discussion here appeared to be highly improper.
- The reason I'm coming to you is that your comment was the immediate indent root of the WP:AN thread that then wandered off into more detailed comments which admins should not have made. The combination of that and your comment that people should contact you privately for more details looks bad.
- I am glad that the underlying facts are that you were responsible with the information. For that, thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- You doth assume too much. I only even provided details to one other user via email, and that was an admin. --Cyde Weys 19:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Progress
Check out my Recall reply to you (and thank you for keeping an apparent open mind). rootology (T) 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Statute of limitations
This idea has me intrigued. Do you think RECALL would get needed support to become policy if there was such a thing that said "basis of dispute/primary evidence" must be from AFTER the time the policy is implemented? I.e., say you (hypothetically) did something vile and probably worthy of Recall x days, weeks, months, or years ago. What if the policy specifically said under Limitations "Diffs as evidence for basis of dispute must be dated after 10/01/06, the date this policy became effective. Older supplemental material/background material may be older." rootology (T) 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- The specific idea being to stop any stupid or absurd flood gates of stuff from the "old days", and so that everyone--admin and editor alike--was on the up and up from Day 1 of the policy's adoption. rootology (T) 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
A barnstar for Cyde
The Original Barnstar
For being a good admin, running the Cydebot, blocking vandals and other obnoxious users, and being a great admin. This barnstar's also for his knowledge of bot programming (something I need to learn!) So here's to you, Cyde! TheM62Manchester 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |