| Revision as of 07:38, 15 November 2012 editRschen7754 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users123,234 edits →Suppressing the discussion of the Paula Broadwell edit history censorship was inappropriate← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:10, 15 November 2012 edit undoCertified Gangsta (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,106 edits →Retract the personal attack in your candidate guide: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 305: | Line 305: | ||
| I have appealed the whole mess to the Arbitration Committee. ] (]) 07:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC) | I have appealed the whole mess to the Arbitration Committee. ] (]) 07:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :Sorry but no. I think Beeblebrox's OS decision was a good call - the Foundation can get into legal trouble for this sort of thing. OS decisions are ''not'' reversible by the community and are ''not'' bound by consensus. The problem with that discussion is that it was causing plenty of editors to repeat stuff that was already oversighted by the community. ''The big deal with oversight is that you're not supposed to mention the stuff again - that's why it was oversighted.'' If it goes to the media, sure, I have no problem defending my actions, but I think that's just a scare tactic. ]'s doors are open if you want to continue this there, but when the community has no power to overturn a OS decision, ''per policy'', there was no point for discussion. --''']]]''' 07:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC) | :Sorry but no. I think Beeblebrox's OS decision was a good call - the Foundation can get into legal trouble for this sort of thing. OS decisions are ''not'' reversible by the community and are ''not'' bound by consensus. The problem with that discussion is that it was causing plenty of editors to repeat stuff that was already oversighted by the community. ''The big deal with oversight is that you're not supposed to mention the stuff again - that's why it was oversighted.'' If it goes to the media, sure, I have no problem defending my actions, but I think that's just a scare tactic. ]'s doors are open if you want to continue this there, but when the community has no power to overturn a OS decision, ''per policy'', there was no point for discussion. --''']]]''' 07:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Retract the personal attack in your candidate guide == | |||
| Go ask ] or anyone who has worked with me over the years and they would tell you I'm a good-faith editor not a troll. If you can't assume good faith, perhaps you are better off stop writing these candidate guides and keeping your opinions to yourself.--] (]) 09:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:10, 15 November 2012
|
Please start new topics at the bottom of the page, even if it is related to a section above. Otherwise it is difficult to find the posting. Notice: I will reply to your posts on this page to keep threading unless requested or unless it is extremely urgent. |
| This is Rschen7754's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
California State Route 78
Is California State Route 78 ready yet for the main page?--Lucky102 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I haven't had time to work on it yet. I will try to get to it soon. --Rschen7754 20:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's going to be at least a week or two. I have two articles I'm trying to get to FAC right now, and it's eating a lot of my time. --Rschen7754 04:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Kansas Turnpike
More a lack of time than anything else; I've been mostly editing in thirty- and fifteen-minute spurts at work, so I've mostly been working on removing unreliable sources from junction lists since I don't need many resources to do that. When I have more time to work on the project it feels like a better ROI to do stub expansion (especially since Kansas isn't my primary project). I'd really like the cleanup effort to involve most of the involved parties to collaborate on editing directly, rather than the usual ACR format of "list things for the primary author to do and he does them."
I have the feeling the time problem is going to get worse before it gets better; I am likely going to be in the process of buying a house in the next few months. —Scott5114↗ 10:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, the problem is that nobody else seems interested in working on it either, and even if they are, they have their own projects and priorities. Meanwhile, the article could be sent to FAR. Speaking for myself, I have two articles headed to FAC at ACR (which I don't think I'll ever do again when in school), and I'm getting caught up in more site-wide issues, so my time's pretty limited. --Rschen7754 19:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking from experience, buying a house is easier if everyone (realtor, lender, et al) is on your side. Lots of waiting. –Fredddie™ 19:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Unless you live in certain areas of the country. --Rschen7754 20:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I feel pretty good about my bank, since I've worked with them before on my car loan and they've indicated that they'd like to lend to me again, so hopefully they'll be pretty decent this time. Looks like there's lots of houses available on the market around here, so I can't imagine getting much resistance from a realtor.
- Unless you live in certain areas of the country. --Rschen7754 20:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking from experience, buying a house is easier if everyone (realtor, lender, et al) is on your side. Lots of waiting. –Fredddie™ 19:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Back on topic: if we can get the referencing and any MOS issues taken care of, I think that will be enough to guard against a FAR. I doubt that FAR will be that interested in demoting an article just because it doesn't meet WP:USRD/STDS, especially since the argument can be made that it exceeds the standards. I haven't seen an argument for the exit list table (instead of the interchange section) that isn't based solely on "Every other article has a table, so this one should too"; I don't see that being too convincing to anyone outside of USRD. We need to lean on everyone to improve the article now. The point should be made that it makes no sense for any USRD member to do a FAR, since it would hurt the project, and could be entirely prevented by a little work now. The saber-rattling from Dough is particularly tiresome; I don't think he gets that point. —Scott5114↗ 23:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I fear this is going to come across as pretty harsh, but it has to be said.
- Back on topic: if we can get the referencing and any MOS issues taken care of, I think that will be enough to guard against a FAR. I doubt that FAR will be that interested in demoting an article just because it doesn't meet WP:USRD/STDS, especially since the argument can be made that it exceeds the standards. I haven't seen an argument for the exit list table (instead of the interchange section) that isn't based solely on "Every other article has a table, so this one should too"; I don't see that being too convincing to anyone outside of USRD. We need to lean on everyone to improve the article now. The point should be made that it makes no sense for any USRD member to do a FAR, since it would hurt the project, and could be entirely prevented by a little work now. The saber-rattling from Dough is particularly tiresome; I don't think he gets that point. —Scott5114↗ 23:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- First of all, the RJL issue. Basically all the editors who have commented say that Kansas Turnpike needs a RJL table. Even Fredddie, who confirmed this to me today. This is starting to come down to a consensus issue; while you may not agree with the reasoning, you don't WP:OWN the article.
- Secondly, it seems like you're not really interested in fixing the article. If this was a normal ACR, I would have failed it by now as stale. But it's not; it's trying to head off a potential FAR. Yes, as I've expressed before, I believe that USRD is one project and should help each other out; but we've given you sources and things to try, and you haven't even touched it for almost a month. We all have our own article-writing projects and priorities, and I know what it's like to constantly be busy (undergraduate and now graduate computer science degree), but some of the fixes are pretty small. As the FAC nominator, you're really in the best position of us to fix the article, since you're familiar with the content and sources. If this was User:Moabdave or User:Admrboltz's nomination, USRD would probably take a more active role, since those editors are mostly inactive, but you're here and apparently have editing time.
- Your comments above lead me to think that you want to do the minimum amount of work to prevent a FAR, regardless of whether it meets the criteria. A FA should really be our best work; is this really Misplaced Pages's best work? That's why I'm going back and updating California State Route 78 when I get a chance, even though it passed FA 3 years ago; I've kept it fairly up-to-date, but my maintenance hasn't sufficed, and it needs some updating. That's why User:Imzadi1979 keeps his FAs maintained, even though he has several of them. When you bring something to FA, you basically take on the responsibility of keeping it at FA standards, or risk having it demoted, since you're probably the one most familiar with the subject. When an article no longer meets the FA standard, it gets sent to FAR, and can be demoted. Even Raul654, the FA director, has lost some FAs this way: see Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. You say that no rational USRD editor would nominate a USRD FA for demotion instead of fixing the issues; however, I've even begun to consider sending it there since I'm not sure that the project has the resources to fix the issues (when we could be getting other articles to FA during that time). A deficient FA reflects badly on USRD and the other USRD FAs as a whole, and on the FA standard and Misplaced Pages as a whole. --Rschen7754 05:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding the RJL issue, you're entirely correct. I don't own the article. If USRD wants it to have a table, by all means, it can have a table. But if I don't agree with adding a table, I don't have to add one. Anyone has the power to edit the article. I will not stand in the way of adding it, other than stating my opposition to it; I know the folly of edit warring and I won't kick it back out if the project wants it, even if I do still feel it's unnecessary.
- Your comments above lead me to think that you want to do the minimum amount of work to prevent a FAR, regardless of whether it meets the criteria. A FA should really be our best work; is this really Misplaced Pages's best work? That's why I'm going back and updating California State Route 78 when I get a chance, even though it passed FA 3 years ago; I've kept it fairly up-to-date, but my maintenance hasn't sufficed, and it needs some updating. That's why User:Imzadi1979 keeps his FAs maintained, even though he has several of them. When you bring something to FA, you basically take on the responsibility of keeping it at FA standards, or risk having it demoted, since you're probably the one most familiar with the subject. When an article no longer meets the FA standard, it gets sent to FAR, and can be demoted. Even Raul654, the FA director, has lost some FAs this way: see Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. You say that no rational USRD editor would nominate a USRD FA for demotion instead of fixing the issues; however, I've even begun to consider sending it there since I'm not sure that the project has the resources to fix the issues (when we could be getting other articles to FA during that time). A deficient FA reflects badly on USRD and the other USRD FAs as a whole, and on the FA standard and Misplaced Pages as a whole. --Rschen7754 05:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're also correct in that I am not really interested in fixing it. That's because what's wrong with it is all either referencing or formatting issues, neither of which appeal to me that much or which I feel that I am much of an expert on, at least not to the extent that I am uniquely qualified to fix them. Many of the references in the article at present were added by SPUI. (In particular, I have never seen or read Milestones; that was all SPUI's doing.) One of the things that needs to be done is to format the NBI refs to refer to individual bridges. How tedious can you get? FAC requirements have changed a lot since both this article and Chickasaw Turnpike have passed, and I haven't been tracking them, since FAC doesn't really interest me to the extent that it has in the past. Part of that is the bureaucracy that is up now to get on the Main Page—I guess that was the goal that I was going for with both FAs, and now it seems impossible to reach, so I don't bother, I guess? In any event I guess since I've achieved that, it doesn't feel like the article has anywhere to go at this point, so messing with it doesn't seem all that rewarding, at least not to the extent that working on other articles can give. But then again, I never did write Creek Turnpike despite having had 100 sources on hand since 2008... —Scott5114↗ 06:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 October 2012
- In the media: Misplaced Pages's language nerds hit the front page
- Featured content: Second star to the left
- News and notes: Chapters ask for big bucks
- Technology report: Wikidata is a go: well, almost
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemicals
Comments by Moonriddengirl
Would you be willing to explain what she meant in her comments, since she refuses to elaborate? I don't understand her meaning, other than the record doesn't count but subjective memory does. That's what it seems to me she meant, but if not please clarify. I'd appreciate it. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't been following this too closely, but it seems that there are concerns that the copyvio might not be fully removed, and Moonriddengirl was consulted as the primary force behind WP:CCI. I haven't had that much interaction with Moonriddengirl, but she seems to be reasonable and well-respected, and accusations of bad faith aren't helpful. She was reluctant to get into the matter since there was sensitive information. Just because FAC/FAR/TFA is mystifying doesn't mean that it is corrupt; it took me years to figure out the system, but once you understand how it works, it's fairly easy to get what you need. For the record, the only FA that is blacklisted is Jenna Jameson; Raul has said that publicly before.
- What concerns me is the way you interact with other editors; you assume everything's a conspiracy, and when anyone criticizes you, you go "OH A CONSPIRACY! ABUUSEEEE!!!!!!!" so nobody can actually criticize you. Maybe slightly exaggerated, but you get the point. That's the quickest way to get on peoples' bad sides and sent to ArbCom. Just slow down, and calm down, and assume good faith, and you won't get into these unpleasant situations. Gotta run out the door, but those are the thoughts off the top of my head. --Rschen7754 22:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Protection...
To which I'd say "No problem" and "yes, that's odd"... Bencherlite 08:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
You, sir
are a prince among men. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, check this out. --Dweller (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) You're welcome! I was just working at our own statistics a few days ago, so I thought I'd save you the work of going through the U.S. and Canada road FAs. --Rschen7754 09:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Request
I'd like to take a look at the TFA arb request case filed in August and can't find it. Would you by chance be able to point me in the right direction? Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Here you go. --Rschen7754 02:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Uggh, wrong one. Try . --Rschen7754 02:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. I sort of look like an idiot there, and to provide context, I was hoping to be just a filing party only, and that Raul654 and Brer and whoever would bring all their complaints and it would be aired out. Raul apparently hates ArbCom, and Brer posted a meaningless statement, so that failed. --Rschen7754 02:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is, if the arbs had taken the case TFAR wouldn't be where it is now, I wouldn't have had such a terrible few days, Br'er most likely wouldn't have been community banned - but the way to go, honestly is by the community, imo, and I was surprised to see that happen. I still think what you did was on the right track - it was a problem then and continues to be a problem. It's about the main page, but no one seems to care. All anyone cares about is whether or not Malleus has said yet another bad word. Anyway, thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've been monitoring TFAR for a while now and am aware of the problems. ArbCom could have banned Brer, so I wouldn't count on that. I'm sufficiently concerned about both Raul and Dabomb being mostly inactive, but unfortunately my efforts to ask them about this have not been fruitful. --Rschen7754 02:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is, if the arbs had taken the case TFAR wouldn't be where it is now, I wouldn't have had such a terrible few days, Br'er most likely wouldn't have been community banned - but the way to go, honestly is by the community, imo, and I was surprised to see that happen. I still think what you did was on the right track - it was a problem then and continues to be a problem. It's about the main page, but no one seems to care. All anyone cares about is whether or not Malleus has said yet another bad word. Anyway, thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's where the double standard is. They could have banned Br'er, but they didn't take the case. And the underlying problem still exists. You've probably seen that I've left a message on Raul's page. At some point something will have to break over that situation, and I'm just a little peeved that the main page gets so little attention from the community when troubles are brewing. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's clear to me that something needs to happen with the levels of TFA staffing. I've thought of several options, but none seem to really catch my attention right now. I hope we don't have to purposely let the TFA go red to get people's attention. For the record, there is some truth to there being a serious divide between the "admins" and the "article writers"; not as far as the article writers claim, but it exists. I have 2 FAs and several GAs, and am a quite active admin, so I'm trying to see the whole picture here. --Rschen7754 03:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's where the double standard is. They could have banned Br'er, but they didn't take the case. And the underlying problem still exists. You've probably seen that I've left a message on Raul's page. At some point something will have to break over that situation, and I'm just a little peeved that the main page gets so little attention from the community when troubles are brewing. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, there's clearly a divide, but it's not a small problem. I have limited time to devote to this on a volunteer basis and have been an admin and main site admin on a busy board in the past and it's frankly something I wanted to leave behind. Here I'm happy to dip in and write when I have time, but it does seem hard to wade through the drama. There's been a lot it lately. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
You've got mail.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Backtable concerning my deeds. 20:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee of Vietnamese Misplaced Pages
I don't know the link to Arbitration Committee of Vietnamese Misplaced Pages. Please help me. Saboche (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- The Vietnamese Misplaced Pages has no Arbitration Committee. My best advice would be to briefly ask for help at m:Babel. --Rschen7754 06:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
M-1 ACR revisit
Can you drop by the ACR to field a query? Imzadi 1979 → 09:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Fleming
Thanks for the ban - much appreciated. I smell a sock at work on there now - is there a way this can be proved? Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. In obvious cases like this, we can just use WP:DUCK and block it. --Rschen7754 05:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 October 2012
- Special report: Examining adminship from the German perspective
- Arbitration report: Malleus Fatuorum accused of circumventing topic ban; motion to change "net four votes" rule
- Technology report: Wikivoyage migration: technical strategy announced
- Discussion report: Good articles on the main page?; reforming dispute resolution
- News and notes: Wikimedians get serious about women in science
- WikiProject report: Where in the world is Misplaced Pages?
- Featured content: Is RfA Kafkaesque?
User:Rschen7754/ACE2012
I have started writing my ArbCom elections guide. I'll be posting the experience part soon; a lot has changed this year. --Rschen7754 20:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
What is your problem?
What on earth did I do to warrant a threat of being blocked? --JoBrLa (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is a collaborative encyclopedia, where you have to work with other users. Frequently, you have ignored the concerns of other users and have plowed ahead with whatever you wanted the article to look like. Kansas Turnpike is a featured article, meaning that you have to be especially careful, since that is considered "our best work" already. Interstate 335 (Kansas) is another example, where you have decided that you know better than everyone else and have gone to AfC to create the article, and have ignored concerns that Kansas Turnpike contains the material already. WP:BRD exists for a reason. Please discuss with other editors and come to a consensus. --Rschen7754 03:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
"Rm scheduled"?
Whoa, wait. I'm confused. What's the meaning of ? The nomination has been there for a few hours or so. I thought we were still discussing stuff. Will the article appear tomorrow or something? • Jesse V. 00:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, Dabomb87 already scheduled it, so there's no need for further discussion. Usually a bot sends out notifications, but it hasn't lately. Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/November 1, 2012 --Rschen7754 00:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- It just felt really abrupt was all. I had an edit conflict in the section, and then everything was gone! Anyway, I'm glad it was scheduled. I'll be really happy to see my work on the Main Page. :) • Jesse V. 00:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 09:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Mr T 09:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Fort McHenry Tunnel
I do not understand what your copyright violation claim is referring to the article on the Fort McHenry Tunnel. The last time I edited that article was four years ago, and the only thing I did was add another picture, an additional photograph of the entrance that I took when I was driving when I approached the tunnel. Presumably, I own the copyright in photos I take and I have the right to donate them for public use if I choose to do so. Please explain exactly what copyright you believe I violated so that I can understand what I did wrong. Also, I'm curious why your link includes what I believe to be a superfluous colon in front of it, the only reason I understand for prefixing an entry with a colon is when you're doing a template include from an entry in the main namespace as opposed to the template namespace. So I'm wondering if it's just you do it that way or there's some special feature by doing that. I'm always interested in learning things. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm using WP:TW. I've also responded on your talk page. --Rschen7754 01:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your apology and I can understand about errors caused by using a bot to check things; the size of Misplaced Pages makes checking for things that are unacceptable manually too large unless we import people from China to do it! This is one of the reasons that they recommend against running unattended bots unless you know exactly what you're doing. And if you're running a supervised bot, you should either back-check it, or modify it to have back checking, because otherwise it's going to do to the next guy exactly what it did to me, either confuse or anger them. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Note
I spilled soda onto my laptop keyboard in August,but it's really gotten sticky and difficultto type this last week. Pleaseforgive any errors. --Rschen7754 22:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
IBAN
FYI, I've asked Dennis Brown (YRC's former mentor) to make the IBAN official, as we've both agreed to it, and I have also offered to withdraw my proposal for a site ban of YRC to help resolve the situation. Prioryman (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly sure how much that will resolve the situation, but I will leave that for ArbCom to decide. --Rschen7754 08:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 October 2012
- News and notes: First chickens come home to roost for FDC funding applicants; WMF board discusses governance issues and scope of programs
- WikiProject report: In recognition of... WikiProject Military History
- Technology report: Improved video support imminent and Wikidata.org live
- Featured content: On the road again
- Recent research: WP governance informal; community as social network; efficiency of recruitment and content production; Rorschach news
Unprotection request
Could you please unprotect Misplaced Pages:List of administrator hopefuls (or at least lower the level of protection from "Protected" to "Semi-protected")? It says that anyone can add their name to the list, but I can't edit the list because I am not an administrator (irony! 
). Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Would you mind pinging User:Rick Block? The reason it's protected is because the bot is broken, and we didn't want to block the bot as it does other tasks. If the page was unprotected, it would break the page. --Rschen7754 07:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Doing... Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Done I posted this message to his talk page. Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration request declined
A request for arbitration in which you were named as a party has been declined.
For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)
| ||||
| ||||
RF Block
I was actually talking about the 30 March 2012 block by Elen, which was before the ArbCom restrictions were valid, but was for the case discussed in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Mindless creation of "suspected sockpuppet" categories from years old, with resulting problems, which resulted in a month long block for violating the mass creation restriction. It was lifted a frw days later for the sole purpose of participating in the ArbCom case about him.
I don't think it is necessary to change the current block, but just wanted to point out that this one was longer, more recent, and for the same restriction, as the one from September. Just in case someone comes along and complains that after more than a year, you shouldn't have escalated it or some other similar argument. Fram (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Mmmmph Elen should have used a better block summary :/ I'll let it be for now but will keep an eye on how people react, and if someone increases it while I sleep that's fine too. --Rschen7754 10:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 November 2012
- Op-ed: 2012 WikiCup comes to an end
- News and notes: Wikimedian photographic talent on display in national submissions to Wiki Loves Monuments
- In the media: Was climate change a factor in Hurricane Sandy?
- Discussion report: Protected Page Editor right; Gibraltar hooks
- Featured content: Jack-O'-Lanterns and Toads
- Technology report: Hue, Sqoop, Oozie, Zookeeper, Hive, Pig and Kafka
- WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Songs
alcatraz full protection
Left reply on talk as well. I think its probably unneeded. blofeld "retired" so war is over? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Glad to see that the full-protection was rescinded. I was just coming over here to post and ask the reasoning for the full protection, when the article hadn't been touched in over 7 hours and Blofeld has retired. Shearonink (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Internet issues
My internet's gotten very slow tonight, likely due to the increased traffic due to the election. It's taking me several minutes to load my watchlist. I apologize for any delay in responding. --Rschen7754 05:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough/Kumioko AN issue
If anyone's wondering if I'm angry with how the discussion's going, yes I am. I knew full well that placing the block would be controversial simply because of who Rich is, and expected to get backlash regardless of the merits of the block. I can take that. But what infuriates me is bringing Misplaced Pages:WikiProject U.S. Roads, which I founded, into it. I don't care if you harass me publicly on AN, or try to get me desysopped, or whatever. But don't bring USRD into this. They're entirely innocent in this manner, and shouldn't be harassed or disparaged just because of my admin actions. I should be free to make whatever admin actions I need to for the good of the site and not have my project or my friends suffer the consequences. I only hope that Kumioko backs down or the community takes proper notice of his actions before I say something I shouldn't. --Rschen7754 08:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't really looked at it - I don't care much for AN - but could I suggest that if you are aware that you are being riled, you just walk away? Unwatch AN all together and leave it alone for the sort of people who want to fight there. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Worm(talk) 09:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, this discussion's particularly bad for AN; I've been involved in some pretty intense discussions there before. The root issue is a user who has been at odds with the project that I founded, and decided to somehow link that project with a block I did that was completely unrelated. It's more an issue of "You can mess with me, but don't mess with my kids." --Rschen7754 09:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- But now I know that people stalk this page, and that I can now post Jimbo-style on this page and it works --Rschen7754 09:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm always watching, it's what I do
Worm(talk) 09:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just for clarification on the issue. I was also very angry with the situation. A whole lot went wrong with that AN starting from the time it was started, not notifying the user and on and on. But yes, I also have issue with that project and several of its members because they have had and continue too, have severe article ownership issues and a long history of abusing editors who would dare touch a US roads article and not be a member of their "group. That project and this AN are just more examples of the toxic atmosphere that is running rampant throughout WP these days and is the reason I'm no longer doing what I originally came to WP to do which is edit articles. Because no one does that anymore....its no longer what WP is about. And that is why I left. The only reason I even edited this AN was because of the balatant abuses of Fram and you Rschen in this AN against Rich. If that wouldn't have happened and you would have followed the policy, I would still be happily using my time in a more useful fashion playing minesweeper! Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Do you plan to label every admin action I make as a problem with USRD? BTW, you still haven't shown how Fram is involved with USRD. Still waiting; that "revelation" is astounding even to me. --Rschen7754 20:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- To provide diffs and spend time with the research required would be a waste of time. Even if I presented a rock solid case I do not have even the slightest faith in the system to think even for an instant that it would amount to anything. I have done this many, many times in the past with many, many editors and do you know what happened. The discussions werer closed, nothing happened and some of those editors are still up to the same antics. In one case I was blocked for my trouble. Providing diffs is only worth the time if there is some indication that the problem would be corrected. You are an admin and so is Fram so because of that, it will not, nor do I think you would really accept them anyway and I have no doubt you would continue to argue about it for weeks to come. But as a general mention, simply compare your edits to Fram's using AWB, I am limited to 25000 per and I see a lot of intersects. I have seen you both, many times, working in tandem, one blocking, the other supporting, one submitting to ANI, the other taking the action to give the illusion of an unbiased action. Kumioko (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's absolute crap. Over 90% of my article-space edits are to U.S. road articles, and I have never seen Fram edit a U.S. road article. Fram has never been a member of the U.S. Roads WikiProject. Please stop making these unsubstantiated allegations immediately, or I will pursue further action. --Rschen7754 21:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Rschen, there is nothing you could do at this point that would hurt my feelings. I deeply beleive in this project. In the purpose of Misplaced Pages and I know in my heart that its dying and there is nothing I can do to stop it. Largely because of the actions of users like you and Fram. So I stopped editing because no matter how hard I work, no matter how many edits I do, I always have some editor who's crying about something. But that makes me the bad guy. I am the one who can't be trusted. I am the one who is being mean to the other editors because I am calling them out. If you want to block me, go ahead, if you want to send me to ANI, go ahead, if you want to submit my name to Arbcom, feel free. The travesty here is that editors like Fram have become admins and they are systematically destroying Misplaced Pages by targetting the most active editors. Fram is like a plague and unfortunately you are not much worse because you are jsut following along to his cadence. Do you know I made a list of about ten editors who, if they all stopped editing Misplaced Pages, the place would instantly be a better place. You, Fram, Imzadi and several others (not all from USRoads) are on that list. You know who else is on that list? ME. Kumioko (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's absolute crap. Over 90% of my article-space edits are to U.S. road articles, and I have never seen Fram edit a U.S. road article. Fram has never been a member of the U.S. Roads WikiProject. Please stop making these unsubstantiated allegations immediately, or I will pursue further action. --Rschen7754 21:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- To provide diffs and spend time with the research required would be a waste of time. Even if I presented a rock solid case I do not have even the slightest faith in the system to think even for an instant that it would amount to anything. I have done this many, many times in the past with many, many editors and do you know what happened. The discussions werer closed, nothing happened and some of those editors are still up to the same antics. In one case I was blocked for my trouble. Providing diffs is only worth the time if there is some indication that the problem would be corrected. You are an admin and so is Fram so because of that, it will not, nor do I think you would really accept them anyway and I have no doubt you would continue to argue about it for weeks to come. But as a general mention, simply compare your edits to Fram's using AWB, I am limited to 25000 per and I see a lot of intersects. I have seen you both, many times, working in tandem, one blocking, the other supporting, one submitting to ANI, the other taking the action to give the illusion of an unbiased action. Kumioko (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Do you plan to label every admin action I make as a problem with USRD? BTW, you still haven't shown how Fram is involved with USRD. Still waiting; that "revelation" is astounding even to me. --Rschen7754 20:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just for clarification on the issue. I was also very angry with the situation. A whole lot went wrong with that AN starting from the time it was started, not notifying the user and on and on. But yes, I also have issue with that project and several of its members because they have had and continue too, have severe article ownership issues and a long history of abusing editors who would dare touch a US roads article and not be a member of their "group. That project and this AN are just more examples of the toxic atmosphere that is running rampant throughout WP these days and is the reason I'm no longer doing what I originally came to WP to do which is edit articles. Because no one does that anymore....its no longer what WP is about. And that is why I left. The only reason I even edited this AN was because of the balatant abuses of Fram and you Rschen in this AN against Rich. If that wouldn't have happened and you would have followed the policy, I would still be happily using my time in a more useful fashion playing minesweeper! Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm always watching, it's what I do
- But now I know that people stalk this page, and that I can now post Jimbo-style on this page and it works
- Well, this discussion's particularly bad for AN; I've been involved in some pretty intense discussions there before. The root issue is a user who has been at odds with the project that I founded, and decided to somehow link that project with a block I did that was completely unrelated. It's more an issue of "You can mess with me, but don't mess with my kids." --Rschen7754 09:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't really tell if this is serious or not. I can't say for sure that Fram has never edited a USRD article, but I can say that Fram has never contributed to USRD at the level of our average editor. –Fredddie™ 00:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fram claims no connection to USRD: Interesting. I also find it interesting that you want to ban the author of 14 FAs. --Rschen7754 07:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Having 14 FA's has nothing to do with it. I have several myself as well as about 30 GA's. I think its interesting that he wants to get an editor banned who has done something like 5 million edits between him and his bots. I think its interesting how he seems to always be the one that knows when Rich does something that might be a violation of something. I find it interesting that he can forum shop, violate AN policy by not notifying the user about a discussion and no one seems to care. I think there are lots of interesting things about this user. That doesn't mean they are beneficial to the project. Kumioko (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Noting that Kumioko has withdrawn his claims regarding USRD's involvement in this block: --Rschen7754 21:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Arb
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Your ArbCom candidate questions
Hi. Your question #3 reads: (Question replaced by question 8a of the general questions). But the general questions this year appear to stop at #7. — Richwales 08:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Uggh. That means they got changed between when I last checked them a few days ago and now. :( I'll take a look. --Rschen7754 08:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed. Good catch! --Rschen7754 08:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 November 2012
- News and notes: Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate
- Featured content: The table has turned
- Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20 and the prospects for getting 1.21 code reviewed promptly
- WikiProject report: Land of parrots, palm trees, and the Holy Cross: WikiProject Brazil
Suppressing the discussion of the Paula Broadwell edit history censorship was inappropriate
The rush to censor is ALWAYS important to censors! It was not nice of you to close a discussion after a mere 14 hours of discussion on the topic. The news media will shortly figure out that Misplaced Pages is now censoring its own logs on the issue (they are already reporting screenshots of the article history that include the removed information, so the attempt to censor the allegation is meaningless). They will also figure out that you are the one who cut off the discussion of the censorship before it could reach any useful conclusion. I recommend that you reopen the discussion - at least that would show good faith.
There is more discussion on Talk:Paula Broadwell.
I have appealed the whole mess to the Arbitration Committee. Gnuish (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but no. I think Beeblebrox's OS decision was a good call - the Foundation can get into legal trouble for this sort of thing. OS decisions are not reversible by the community and are not bound by consensus. The problem with that discussion is that it was causing plenty of editors to repeat stuff that was already oversighted by the community. The big deal with oversight is that you're not supposed to mention the stuff again - that's why it was oversighted. If it goes to the media, sure, I have no problem defending my actions, but I think that's just a scare tactic. WP:AUSC's doors are open if you want to continue this there, but when the community has no power to overturn a OS decision, per policy, there was no point for discussion. --Rschen7754 07:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Retract the personal attack in your candidate guide
Go ask User:Bishonen or anyone who has worked with me over the years and they would tell you I'm a good-faith editor not a troll. If you can't assume good faith, perhaps you are better off stop writing these candidate guides and keeping your opinions to yourself.--YOLO Swag (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)