This is a Wikipedia user talkpage.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs (and the users whose comments appear on it) may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. You can leave me a message here. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B./December_2007.

This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from User talk:A. B. for the month of December 2007. Exchanges spilling over from late November or into early January may have been retained elsewhere to avoid breaking their continuity.

In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form.

Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the User talk:A. B. page.

If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the user talk:A. B. page and then add your comments there.

Note: many of these were archived out of chronological order!

When you are "really" back

I started this off while you were gone. There seems to be some general agree on changes but your input would of course be very welcome. (aimed at getting rid of the "spam" word - see here too) Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm back now but catching up on "real world" tasks this weekend from when I was away.

I'll take a look at this. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added my 2 cents. I'm going back to semi-dormant status for another day or two. Thanks for getting this ball rolling -- I think it's a very good idea to re-examine these warnings. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Submarine navigation

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Submarine navigation, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: User:A. B./Sandbox7. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 05:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

I know that you are pretty busy but I'd quite like to get a couple of items out of the way and would appreciate your words on them (unless you'd like me to leave it until say the 11th!). I'm in two mind on this one. Equally this one seems a little gray to me? Thanks for all the work on the adsense one, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm happy to stick my foot in my mouth in the meantime.

I already left my detailed 2 pence earlier on the sundial.ca request. I suggest whitelisting and leaving notes on talk pages for the links' advocates that they're responsible for policing any sundial spam. That site, while self-published, is apparently authoritative on the subject of gnomonics (sundialogy)
As for the other link, is it a reliable source? If so, my bias is towards granting the whitelist requests of established editors. Ideally our spam mitigation efforts should be so smooth, so frictionless and non-disruptive that regular editors hardly it's going on. (As opposed to the sturm und drang of the andhranews situation, so typical of citation spam cases). I don't know if that's a reliable source or not and I'm not sure I have time to chase it down. If it is, I'd make sure the requester has some buy-in as to being the person who will ride herd on any future spam. He made some good points about how the developers should modify the software, but until then someone has to watch that link if it's whitelisted.

--A. B. ^(talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#www.sbmkpm.com.2Fgraph.html. I removed sbmkpm.com from the BL, so that is resolved.--Hu12 (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prods

Just to let you know, you inserted the prod list in the wrong place on the Canada-related deletions page — instead of ending up as a subsection of that page, it ended up as a subsection on a specific AFD page that it wasn't actually related to. I've corrected it, but thought I should let you know. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darn.

Well, thanks for catching my mistake and fixing it. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TomTom

A DRV was opened concerning the non-admin early closure of the AFD on TomTom. I annulled that closure and the discussion is now reopened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TomTom (2nd nomination). I am letting you know as you commented on the first AFD and may wish to do so on the second. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

You've posted support twice at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kralizec! and updated the tally to include both :o Maralia (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dang. Not my day (see "PRODS" above).

Thanks for catching this. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Kappa Alpha

I supported keeping the articles on the sorority and individuals, and have some ideas for how to strengthen the article (and they relate to articles on individuals as well) which I added to the TalkPage, found a few more sources (although don't have most of the books, but there is a recent one that looks perfect) and rewritten the first paragraph in a direction that may strengthen it. Will work on more this weekend, but wanted to let you, futurebird, Miranda, CJ and others know, so you could see if it is along the lines you're thinking of. (Will check other names from the RfD too.)--Parkwells (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel Hedgeman Lyle

I've restructured this article and added some new info that might be a useful model for others working on the founders of Alpha Kappa Alpha. Added a couple of new sources and found another academic one that may be useful. It's taken a while, but could be easy to adapt for others. Mostly I tried to make it more like resumes.--Parkwells (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work on these articles. I look forward to looking at them in a day or two; for now I'm tied up with a big spam problem. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN:Virtualology

With ref to your AN post, I have no idea if it will help but I have two possibly relevant tools I can offer.

One - wpW5 - will search article history and tell you when a piece of text (ie. a link) was added and who added it. It takes about 30 seconds in "quick" mode.

The other - lkScan - will search a user's entire contribs and compile every web link they've added to any article and put them into a sortable format.

Maybe these could help you figure out the whole scope of the problem? Let me know if you think they could help. Franamax (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of people would be interested in that tool; if you haven't already done it, can you leave a note at:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam

Does these run on my computer as a standalone program, as a browser plug-in, or on a tool server somewhere?

Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 03:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are Windows executables (VC++). I can send you copies if you want. Do you have ZoneAlarm firewall so you can be sure I'm not a spy? I have some descriptions on my userpage and I will put something on WPSpam. Franamax (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using Windows, however, I think a lot of other WikiProject Spam participants would love to get their hands on this. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what OS you are running? I've been thinking of adding unix-ifying to my list of things to do. Franamax (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MacOS -- I know it can run many unix programs since it's based on unix but I don't know how to do this. I'm not command line-savvy! --A. B. ^(talk) 02:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's OS/X and an Intel/AMD CPU, it should have a Windows mode somewhere. I have no idea how to run it though ;) Franamax (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an older mac with a Motorola chip so Windows would need special klugey emulator software. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TomTom

Thanks for the suggestion, it helps - don't know yet my way around in every situation, still learning. Iterator12n ^Talk 23:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote on my RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of 41/0/1.

Please accept a slice of panettone as an expression of my gratitude. Feel free to help yourself to some chocolate zabaglione as well.

I am humbled by the trust placed in me to use the tools wisely.

Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rkitko, I was happy to support your RfA and I'm confident you'll do well. Congratulations. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

famousamericans.net

Thank you for the post and invitation at Talk:History of Minnesota. It is unfortunate that no one gave notification prior to action being taken. (This is no criticism of you; I did not see that you took such actions.) My thoughts are more fully expressed on the talk page linked above. While the invitation is appreciated, I prefer to spend my time creating and editing articles instead of further participation in the discussion we have now been invited to join. Perhaps those responsible for these wholesale changes should recognize the disruption caused by their actions in order to consider how to avoid such problems in the future. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the material and comments I posted at WP:AN, I wanted very much to spread word to as many Wikipedia noticeboards as possible, build consensus, then methodically start reversing spam edits with minimum disruption to regular editors and our articles. I did not envision the process taking off so quickly or proceeding as it did; I estimated it would take 10 to 20 editor-hours to methodically work through the links making careful edits, finding new sources, etc.

All I can say is that of the link removals I've done, I don't think any have been reversed or questioned, but then again I've been much slower than some others. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the link in this article was not spam but was made in good faith by its author. Kablammo (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know probably 5% of the >1000 links were added in good faith -- all the more reason to proceed carefully. Inflammatory terms like "spam" should not be used when removing links except where they were known to have been added by one of the sockpuppets involved. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the 1000 plus links going to be restored to famousamericans.net that were mistakenly deleted? --97.97.197.9 (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

congratulations

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --A. B. ^(talk) 13:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know my thoughts :) - great news - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats..!--Hu12 (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. No problem. You were a very great candidate indeed, and I'm glad I had the opportunity to co-nominte you. Wield the mop with care! All the best, — Rudget _speak.work 16:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well-deserved. Go make me proud! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!!!! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! And don't worry about crossing your strings, I'm sure you'll do exceptionally well. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 21:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wee-hoo! And thanks for the haiku! MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I put way too much time putting that thing together but it was fun. I also wanted to use Image:Domokun.jpg and Image:Godzilla （04）.jpg but I wasn't sure if they were really fair use, notwithstanding their tags.
--A. B. ^(talk) 22:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Sir and welcome to the dark side. It was nice to see unanimous support for one so deserving. Sing out if you need any help. —Moondyne 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, A.B.! I really hope you will do a great job as an admin. And, thank you for the card. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I do already have a little glass cobra statue, but thank you! GlassCobra 03:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the card and congratulations! Happy editing, Midorihana _(talk)_(contribs) 06:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.B. an admin?

How will he handle the tools?

I think he will rock.

A chroeso, llongyfarchion a pob lwc ag yr teclynnau! Neıl ☎ 09:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm following this Welsh-English dictionary correctly, I'll need a lot of lwc with my teclynnau in the first few days! --A. B. ^(talk)

Congrats. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations - Keep up the good work. Modernist (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great success!

Click that-a-way to open your card! → → →

Dear A. B.,

Thank you for your participation in my request for adminship, which ended successfully with a final tally of (52/10/1). I was impressed by the thoughtful comments on both sides, and the RFA process in general. The extra buttons do look pretty snazzy, but I'll be careful not to overuse them. If you have advice to share or need assistance with anything, feel free to drop me a message or email. Thank you and good day!

Cordially,
— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credits - This RFA thanks was inspired by Carlosguitar's RFA thanks and LaraLove's RFA thanks, which were both inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks, which was in turn inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Love the card! I'm very happy for you and I know you will do well. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haiku

Hahaha, that was a good one! XD What can I say, I like an admin with a creative mind (and a sense of humour). :P Cheers and good luck with your adminship! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- if you read what I wrote up above, you'll see that I spent way too much time on it, but it was fun. I did not want to go around thanking people with a bot. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations - Keep up the good work. Modernist (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 00:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 00:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer -- I look forward to doing this before making my big edit to the Main Page! --A. B. ^(talk) 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Spebi 04:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, congrats! And, thanks, for the personalized thank-you :P It was a nice touch! SQL^{Query me!} 11:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I figure if 86 editors + a bureaucrat took the time to weigh in on my candidacy, then they deserved personalized thanks not just bot-mail. I enjoyed doing it and it was an excuse to read everyone's user page to get to know them better as people. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations - I've been asked before, but am quite sure I don't want to be - thanks all the same. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you ever change your mind, let me know. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You crack me up [1]! Congrats to both of us on our bit knighting. Sorry you cannot be a member of the Khabal ... perhaps you can form your own Ahbal instead! --Kralizec! (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your successful RFA, I think I should do more participation in more RFA discussions, I've been doing only when spotted RFAs on Recent changes while fighting vandalism, etc, etc. --JForget 18:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Here's a handy thing I put on my user page: {{User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report}}. Since then, I've become more active in RfAs. I can tell at a glance what's going on; if my time is short, I can focus on editors I know and/or borderline candidacies where a thoughtful, researched support or delete could tip the balance. Have fun in Ottawa (interesting city). --A. B. ^(talk) 18:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I've just added it, I had saw that box on User:Sarah before, so I had thought about that one.--JForget 18:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was late for the party. Congrats on your new, shiny mop and bucket! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 08:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --A. B. ^(talk) 13:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Casagrande

Hi A.B., thanks for your comment regarding this thing. I added some information to try to make it clearer - I do not really want to kill all of them, just merge.--Legionarius (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my RFA

<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday!

I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia.

Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and congrats on your own RfA! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and congratulations! --A. B. ^(talk) 20:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thanks

.--Sandahl 21:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The goal of our spam-mitigation efforts is (or should be) to minimize disruption to our regular editors while filtering out as much garbage as we can. That page was just one part of a multi-page filtering system. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

js Popups

// User:Lupin/popups.js - please include this line 
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
            + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js'  
            + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
popupAdminLinks=true;

Give it a try. User:A. B./monobook.js. allows preview without opening every diff. more features at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups--Hu12 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Blessed editing, and...

Happy Holidays from Marlith ^T/C

Credits: This card was inspired by Macy's 123, assistant of V's Shop

Marlith ^T/C 00:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Merry Christmas to you, too. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

As am I! Thank you for your staunch support, it's appreciated. :) --El on ka 07:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Conflict

My reasons for nominating International SOS were not corporate or because of any competition with them. I honestly had never heard of them until I came across it here. At the time, one of the primary reasons that my article was nominated for deletion was that I didn't have any outside references, or news articles written about the company. Afterwards, looking at the International SOS wiki, I noticed that not only were there no outside references, but it linked to its own website four individual times. It was essentially a navigational homepage to the international sos website (index, locations, about us, history).

If you look at it currently, it does now have an outside reference. Why did that happen? Because someone started a discussion about it. Now things are changed. I admitted personally that after reviewing the rules, the VIP Air article deserved to be deleted. The only reason I commented on my own discussion was to correct a few errors people were making, but I openly admitted in talks that I too believed the VIP article should be deleted in its then-current state.

As always, I fully appreciate the fervor at which wikipedia regulars and admins regulate the content that comes on here, and I'll remain a member for a long time to come, and hopefully next time I post an article, I'll have the sources to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringo380 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ringo, we're glad to have you here and I look forward to your contributions! Thanks for dropping me this note.

We have more than enough coverage of Pokemon, anime and George Bush. It's mundane but important stuff like air ambulances, precision molding, reactor physics, and 16th century scientists that we need more coverage of. So thanks for your help with air ambulances.

I'm also glad the InternationalSOS article was improved. I just happened to see it listed on the Articles for Deletion list and was surprised. I had shopped around in the past for medical evacuation insurance and read about them in articles, so I knew they'd had press coverage. As it turns out, I won't say they saved my life, but they probably came very close when I got extremely sick overseas and too weak to even get help. A relative back home called their 24-hour call center and they intervened to get me good care locally. I'm not a partisan of InternationalSOS and I imagine they have some competitors that are just as good. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Admin nomination

I wished I had known about this. I would have voted for you -- although it's clear that my vote was unnecessary. -- llywrch (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send you thank you spam anyway. --A. B. ^(talk)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:A. B./Sandbox6

Hiya, I see you been working on this. Just give me a shout if you have a large amount of spam to remove again, as always, I'll be here to help for it. :) — Save_Us_229 10:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even more spam than the last batch -- and I'm saving the Greek pages for you!

Seriously, thanks for your help before and thanks for stepping forward this time. I want to give this one a bit more time today before we start ripping stuff out so potential objectors have time to speak before we do anything.--A. B. ^(talk) 13:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Honeypot Spam Domains List

A.B. how should we name the article? Should it be PHSDL or Project Honeypot Spam Domains List

PHSDL is an acronym and will be easy to reference. Also there is no article with PHSDL so should work fine, and we can 301 redirect it to the full name.
Project Honeypot Spam Domains List

What do you think? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Igor, I'm tied up with a big spam case, so it may take me a few days before I can look at this stuff. --A. B. ^(talk)

A.B. No problem, take a look at it when you can. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.B. please reference this for PHSDL notability references. Igor Berger (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation skills requested

A.B., please see this - our old friend the cookie-cutter pornstar spammer is back. I did some preliminary digging...looks like this is just the tip of the iceberg. It appears at a quick look he's registered hundreds of sites using GoDaddy, so an IP filter won't pick him up. How do you suggest we proceed? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left some tips on the WPSPAM talk page, but I'm tied up with other stuff for a while. (Also, I share this computer and don't care to leave porn cookies and browser histories on it for others to ponder.) --A. B. ^(talk) 16:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Really, really bad haikus from a new admin

Sorry for the late reaction – been busy elsewhere. Anyway, you said: I find your stated purpose on your user page very interesting. The culture and dynamics here are interesting to me, if once in a while a little off-putting. I don't think human nature has changed much in the last few millennia, but its forms of expression are constantly evolving. Now we have this big experiment, Wikipedia, that really doesn't have many close precedents (in my opinion).

Thanks for reacting to my user page. Regarding doesn’t have many close precedents I offer for your consideration a concept that (in my opinion) is a precedent – democracy. This is not to say that Wikipedia is (or should be) a democracy. Instead, what I mean is that the participant in a democracy and the participant in Wikipedia both don’t have (or need to have) perfect knowledge but that ideally the outcome of democracy and the outcome of Wikipedia are better than any participant can offer individually. Obviously, this opinion goes back to a mathematics-driven interest in systems, complexity and emergence. Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 02:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important message about recall

++Lar: t/c 04:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(the above is a message I am thinking of sending to every member of the category but am trying it out on a few folk, feedback welcome. You get to be my test subject #3... what do you think? ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're absolutely right about setting this down now. I haven't had time to think this through carefully whereas you have put a lot of thought into it; for now I had already added a link to your Accountability page from my user page.

As for posting this message on 130 user talk pages, I suggest you do perhaps 10 to 15 at a time and see what evolves. That, or post a much shorter message with a link to a discussion page.

I don't buy this "Good admins could never survive a second RfA because of all the good things they do that make them unpopular therefore they should never have to have another RfA again." Editors should be servants to our readers and admins should be servants to our editors. I also don't think that RfA is "broken"; imperfect and quirky, yes, but better than the alternatives I've seen so far. Instead, I think some long-time admins are bothered that standards have risen; they might not have ever passed in the past, let alone now, having bitten too many users. Some of the same folks that claim "adminship is no big deal" sure seem to want to cling to it at all costs. It even seems sometimes that the very existence of the purely voluntary recall category feels threatening to some other admins.

Personally, I think term limits are not a bad idea, perhaps 18 months. That or a reconfirmation process similar to Meta's after 12 months. But we should probably crawl before we walks and those ideas can wait for now.

I appreciate your leadership on getting all this going. You've been very wise to grow it from the bottom up as a voluntary measure rather than try (unsuccessfully) to get it pushed through some sort of policy-making process. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.... There have been some changes in what I recommend, see User:Lar/catmsg to see my final recommendations. I am doing a few letters at a time, I'm up to F and there are more than a half dozen entries in the table already... I have gotten great feedback. Also since the table page has been moved from a cat to a non cat, the edit history has been lost. You may want to re-edit your entry in the table to validate that it was you that added it. Since you're using my criteria/process, you may want to give a link to a specific history entry version of the page, heck I may change mine to say that admins that start with A only need 1 petitioner to get recalled or something :) Cacharoth's entry is an example of how that was done. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 23:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinder?

Original remark at User talk:MrWhich#legistorm.com links (permanent link):

"Can I ask you to be a little bit kinder to those you disagree with on this topic? They are human beings too. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"

Background to that remark:

--A. B. ^(talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When have I been other than civil? I have a strong opinion, that I've expressed clearly, and without attacking other editors. I'm not warm and cuddly, but I don't feel that I've been "mean" to anyone in the course of discussion. To what specifically are you referring? Mr Which ??? 21:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well perhaps "kinder" was the wrong choice of words. Stuff like this doesn't help reach compromises or gain concessions, though:

"No, I don't even concede that your premise is true ..."
"That is an extremely bad faith assumption, and involves some crystal-balling as to motives from you that is not appropriate for this discussion ..."
"This "after the holidays" stuff has no rational basis at all ..."

This makes it harder to maintain some sort of collegiality among editors in finding a way forward. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Which. Your contributions to wikipedia recently consist of a pattern of interupting discussions with tendentious comments and disrupting otherwise productive discussions.--Hu12 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to chime in as well. When everyone in a debate is calm, polite, and respectful, it is more likely that a productive solution will result. Mr. Which, your comments of late have not always been calm, polite, and respectful. Thus, your participation in recent debates has not always contributed to a positive outcome.

I appreciate your zeal and passion for the project, I really do, but your demeanor has been undermining your own positions. I would ask that you please reconsider how you present your opinions, and just tone down the rhetoric a little. I think you’ll be surprised at how much more effective it is in getting at least some of what you want. Thanks. — Satori Son 22:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit pointless. Every actual example pointed to is a comment on an idea, not on a person, and they are cited completely shorn of their context. To classify my edits as "tendentious" or "disruptive" is simply beyond the pale. Edits don't become "disruptive" or "tendentious" just because you disagree with them. I'll thank you to not accuse me of being disruptive when I have not been so. Those are serious accusations, and unless you're willing to back them up with an RfC, an AN/I report, or some other official dispute resolution, I suggest you retract them. Mr Which ??? 22:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mr Which, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, we can't "agree to disagree" on whether I'm being "disuptive and tendentious." Those are two hot words on this project, and they have specific definitions. I won't just be accused of being such without proof. I have not, at any time during this discussion, been disruptive and tendentious. Brusque, perhaps, but that's much different than what I've been accused of doing. Being disuptive and tendentious is blockable. If an admin thinks I'm such, they should block me. As I haven't been such, the block would be quickly overturned, but if the admin truly thinks that (and isn't simply throwing those words around loosely), they should block me, and let the chips fall where they may. If I now sound angry, I am. That anyone could interpret my vigorous discussion at the spam page as D & T is just outrageous to me. Mr Which ??? 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read what I wrote above and on your user talk page. I did not call you "tendentious" or "disruptive"; others did. Those terms have very specific meanings and implications for your activities on Wikipedia. Templates, warnings, mediation, blocks, etc.

No, on the point of "brusque", yes, Mr Which, we do agree on that.

"Brusque" is an excellent word. Dismissive of others' ideas as you acknowledged above. Always inside the bounds of WP:NPA and usually within the wide scope of WP:CIVIL (a low hurdle). Not particularly worried about WP:TACT or WP:NICE but, hey, one's a red link and the other's just a little stub of an essay. Sometimes found vaguely unpleasant by other editors when the going gets rough but not likely to ever get blocked or even warned. Quick to throw out the terms "good faith" and "bad faith". Sometimes the recipient of unsolicited^[2], unwanted^[3] smiley faces from fellow editors.

All the more reason for us to "agree to disagree" on everything besides "brusque" and just move on.

No "RfC, an AN/I report, or some other official dispute resolution" for you this year, Mr Which -- just a "Merry Christmas".
--A. B. ^(talk) 01:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you placed your "a to d" response directly after I had responded in frustration and anger to being called d & t, I assumed that's what you were talking about. If we're "agreeing to disagree" about my tendency to be brusque with opinions I hold in low regard, then there's no disagreement. It's true. As for the smiley left on my page, I've never seen a more disingenuous "gesture" in my WP tenure. I have no problem with smileys, just smileys left with a snarky message. And, just for the record, I hope your Christmas is wonderful as well. Mr Which ??? 01:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see my advice above has been completely and utterly ignored. Being angry is not an acceptable excuse for being uncivil, and the sooner you learn that the more rewarding and productive your Wikipedia experience will be. — Satori Son 17:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Satori Son, I don't think he cares. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend taking another look at the civility policy. There's a very clear definition given, and it has nothing to do with not becoming angry. I have not violated policy in any respect. Your assumption that I "don't care" about being civil seems to toe that line a bit though. Please assume good faith of me in my efforts to contribute to the project. Mr Which ??? 18:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you honestly examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control ? Perhaps secretly inside you enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation, but to everyone who is busily trying to work together harmoniously to build an encyclopedia, you become an impediment. this wastes everyone's time, including yours--Hu12 (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not much I can add to that other than to take another look at that "good faith" guideline you love to cite; I think you're still a little unclear on the concept.^[4][5][6][7] --A. B. ^(talk) 19:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You two just need to stop. Just because someone disagrees with you (even vigorously so), does not give you the right to speculate as to what that editor feels "secretly inside", and to say that I have become an "impediment." That you see absolutely nothing wrong with the offensive accusations you level in this thread regarding my motives angers me very much. As such, I will not be returning to your talkpages, and I will consciously avoid dealing with any of the people who have contributed to this thread. And if any of you choose to add warnings, notices, or otherwise interact with me at my talkpage, you can expect for those to be reverted on sight. I'm finished dealing with editors who attempt to read my mind, and impute motives on my contributions that do not exist. Good bye. Mr Which ??? 20:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Good!

Nice to see you doing some work :) Don't forget to log them. And good wishes for 2008 - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~How do I log these? I looked for a log page page but didn't find one. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

OK, I found it. Taken care of. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]