User talk:ST47: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:59, 7 April 2008 editBellwether BC (talk \| contribs)2,462 edits →Direct questions: restoring comment that was NOT "unhelpful."← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:08, 7 April 2008 edit undoCarcharoth (talk \| contribs)Administrators73,550 edits →Direct questions: try to calm things down againNext edit →
Line 58:		Line 58:
	***It doesn't just ''look'' bad, it ''is'' bad. And if he does it again, he should be blocked until he foreswears using his tools as weapons in a dispute. Call it a "witchhunt" all you want, it is what it is. All any of us has asked for you to do is promise not to do so again. ] ]] 03:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)		***It doesn't just ''look'' bad, it ''is'' bad. And if he does it again, he should be blocked until he foreswears using his tools as weapons in a dispute. Call it a "witchhunt" all you want, it is what it is. All any of us has asked for you to do is promise not to do so again. ] ]] 03:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
	****OK, guys, calm down and let him reply. No need to pile on the pressure. ] (]) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)		****OK, guys, calm down and let him reply. No need to pile on the pressure. ] (]) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
			*And now, since Bellwether restored his comment (which for the record I think was fine, but seems to have upset ST47) I turn to ST47 and ask you (ST47) to not revert the re-addition of Bellwether's comment. You (ST47) can of course end the whole thread and archive it, but please just do that if you don't want to discuss this further. That would be the quickest way to end this, and would still send the signal that you don't want to discuss this with Bellwether, which I'm not entirely happy about, but is still your right. ] (]) 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Perl ==		== Perl ==

Revision as of 18:08, 7 April 2008

Friday 27 December
2024 02:16 UTC Archives 0x00 0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7 8|9|A|B|C|D|E|F 0x10 0|1|2|3|4

My Talk Page

My Contributions

ATTENTION! IF YOU ARE REPORTING AN ISSUE WITH ONE OF MY BOTS, AND YOU'D LIKE IT TO BE FIXED BEFORE THE HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE:

Visit https://jira.ts.wikimedia.org/secure/CreateIssue!default.jspa (you will need to register)
Select:
- Project: ST47's tools
- Issue Type: Bug, new feature, whatever. If you don't know what this means, choose bug.
Click next.
Fill in a short summary, select a priority level, and look to see if the name of the bot is listed in the components section. If it is, select is, otherwise, select unknown.
Ignore affects version and fix version, I'll fill them in myself
Ignore assignee
If this is a problem with the bot that I am running, ignore 'environment'. If you are running my code, put your operating system and other information there.
Add a detailed description, and
Hit 'create'.

I'll receive an email immediately, and you will get an email back if I need more information, or once I fix the issue.

If the problem is with the Perlwikipedia code, please put the bug under "Perlwikipedia" project instead. (Bot operators only)

While I will receive a message on my talk page eventually, I have Ways of Knowing when I get new bugs filed through this process.

ST47's talk page

Please sign your comments. To make a new section, click here, or just add a section to the bottom of the page. Remember to use a meaningful header.

This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.

If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ST47.

Wikimedia Foundation

Contents

Unprotection

I've been following the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Proposed decision#Page protection. Would you have time to read that and consider helping to resolve this by: (a) unprotecting the page (it should not remain protected indefinitely); and (b) softening your stance somewhat to help achieve closure on this issue. It goes without saying that no-one should continue to edit the page, but unprotecting would at least show good faith that the incident is passed and that you trust people to make comments at other venues. I intially posted in that thread that unprotecting the page was needed, but I am now approaching you first, as I think that is the best way to move forward and allow both "sides" to achieve some form of reconciliation. Would you consider this? Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, doh! :-) I was watching here for a response, when I would have done better to watch the page in question. Only just noticed that. Thanks for doing that. I'll pop back to the arbcom page and note this there. Carcharoth (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing - trying to bring this to a close and avoid bad blood - I think some people will still have issues with whether or not your initial page protection was appropriate. Since the arbitration committee are not likely to directly address the issue, I've asked several editors what kind of reassurances they would like from you regarding future conduct. Your evidence presentation was actually pretty clear on this point, but I've posted here if you want to comment there. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Direct questions

Per this, I am asking you two direct questions which should, hopefully, resolve this one way or another:

In future, will you avoid using your tools concerning bot requests where you are named as an operator?
In future, will you avoid using your tools concerning bot requests where you have participated in the discussion?

Please feel free to answer here or there (the arbitration proposed decision talk page), or contact me on my talk page if you want to discuss this further. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that it's obvious that we all avoid using tools in these cases. It isn't until someone continues to be disruptive after non-administrative measures are undertaken that use of admin tools is necessary, if only because no uninvolved admin is available. For an example of this stance in policy, see WP:BLOCK. We warn vandals before we block them. But we do eventually block them, and if no one else is readily available, I just might revert their edits AND block them. Are we suggesting that that would not be acceptable? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 11:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
(Also, I would hope it's obvious that blocking vandals is an analogy here, and that I'm not calling anyone a vandal. You never know how someone will twist a comment in an attempt to further their witch hunt, however, so the point is worth noting.) --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 11:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Leaving the unhelpful witch-hunt reference to one side, my final question is whether next time, if there is a next time, you will try and find an uninvolved administrator to deal with your concerns about discussions being derailed? If I can get an answer on that point, this will be resolved as far as I'm concerned, though I can't speak for others. Carcharoth (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That is pretty much what I said, if someone is available, sure. If something needs doing and it'd be easier to do it myself, I don't see a need to go hunting down administrators. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 12:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
That is a grey area, but please do make an effort to find someone who is uninvolved. Being able to display that sort of judgement over how involved you are is an important part of being an administrator. And I don't think that removing Bellwether's comment was helpful. At the very least, that removal should be noted in this thread for your talk page archives. Bellwether, before getting angry about this, consider that that an angry response from you here may not help, and ST47 may argue that an angry response from you proves his point. I am going to raise all this back at the arbitration case pages. ST47, please consider restoring Bellwether's comment. Bellwether, please keep calm in any response - if you were going to be calm anyway, I apologise for wrongly pre-empting you. Carcharoth (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm finished with him. I'm not angry, but this is just ludicrous. Not only does he refuse to see reason on this issue, but he attacks others as "disruptive" (in his evidence) and "unhelpful" (here) for daring to question his use of the tools as a weapon in a dispute. Something has to be done about him. (For the record, I'll be restoring my comments shortly, as they were not "unhelpful" in the least.) Bellwether _C 13:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- The vandal analogy doesn't really fit, and finding an uninvolved administrator shouldn't be hard– you seem to be an IRC regular, so it should be relatively easy to find one on there, if not, WP:AN/I and WP:AN are always available. The point I think that needs to be made is that you should never, under any circumstances, use your sysop privileges in a dispute that you're a party to. No matter how objective you feel you're capable of being, it will always look bad to outsiders when you do this. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  - It doesn't just look bad, it is bad. And if he does it again, he should be blocked until he foreswears using his tools as weapons in a dispute. Call it a "witchhunt" all you want, it is what it is. All any of us has asked for you to do is promise not to do so again. Bellwether _C 03:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    - OK, guys, calm down and let him reply. No need to pile on the pressure. Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
And now, since Bellwether restored his comment (which for the record I think was fine, but seems to have upset ST47) I turn to ST47 and ask you (ST47) to not revert the re-addition of Bellwether's comment. You (ST47) can of course end the whole thread and archive it, but please just do that if you don't want to discuss this further. That would be the quickest way to end this, and would still send the signal that you don't want to discuss this with Bellwether, which I'm not entirely happy about, but is still your right. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Perl

How exactly can I download Perl for Windows? Thanks, - 'M ilks 'F 'avorite 'C ookie 23:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your sig is too long, you need to shorten it.

You can get ActivePerl for windows from activestate - google that company name. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 10:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image Help

I wanted one of my Images (STBotI tagged it) checked and made sure that the copyright information is up to check, so I put a message on the bot and here so that I can get it checked ASAP. Here is a copy of the message I left STBotI:

I think it is "up to code", so to speak, now. Image:Crystal Mystery.jpg Just double check, I don't want to get in trouble with an administrator, nor you for that matter. Please and Thank You! --Obaidz96 (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You also need a copyright tag - I've added the correct one. Thanks! --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 10:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

BLPWatchbot

Access Request. ⇒SWATJester 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledgment of Access Request, Acceptance of Proposal, Request for IRC Cloak of Applicant. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 02:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester@wikipedia/Swatjester ⇒SWATJester 05:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, access granted. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 17:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Block messages

Just a reminder that it's good practice to leave a talk page message for users you block, like User:GhostStalker. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm on my laptop at the moment, so I don't have all the neat scripts to do my job for me :( --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 13:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)