User talk:NuclearWarfare: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:28, 21 March 2011 editATren (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,279 edits →Please blank GoRight's user page ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:24, 1 January 2025 edit undoJJMC89 bot (talk \| contribs)Bots1,163,997 edits →Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder: new section
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{User:NuclearWarfare/Menu}}		<!-- {{User:NuclearWarfare/Menu}} -->
	{{talk header\|noarchive=yes}}		{{talk header\|noarchive=yes}}
			{{archives
	{\| class="standard-talk messagebox"
			\| collapsed = yes
			\| bot = MiszaBot III
			\| age = 90
			}}
			{{archives\|banner=yes\|list=\|small=yes\|prefix=\|root=}}
			<!-- {\| class="standard-talk messagebox"
	\| align="center" style="width:53px;"\|]		\| align="center" style="width:53px;"\|]
	\|align="left"\|<big>'''Wait!'''</big> Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? ] before leaving a message to find out why.		\|align="left"\|<big>'''Wait!'''</big> Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? ] before leaving a message to find out why.
	\|}		\|} -->
	{{bots\|deny=SineBot}}		{{bots\|deny=SineBot,DPL bot}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|maxarchivesize = ~~100K~~		\|maxarchivesize = 125K
	\|counter = 30		\|counter = 41
			\|minthreadsleft = 0
	\|algo = old(3d)
			\|algo = old(90d)
	\|archive = User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
	{{clear}}
	{{archives
	\| collapsed = yes
	\| bot = MiszaBot III
	\| age = 3
	}}
	{{search archives \| small=yes}}
	{{clear}}		{{clear}}

	== I ~~still~~ ~~think this needs airing~~ ==		== The ICC Barnstar ==

			{\| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	<!-- ] 00:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC) -->
			\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" \| ]
	Originally posted on ], with the section title "Get my position straight before you attack it"
			\|rowspan="2" \|

			\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" \| '''The International Criminal Court Barnstar of National Merit'''
	I'd appreciate, next time, that you discuss things with me ''before'' you misconstrue my position. That I have expressed no small amount of frustration and a few choice words for the vultures that infested the AC/N talk thread is unrelated to the merit of the desysop. If you had taken the time to actually ''read'' what I'v been saying — or took a moment of your time to check on the facts — you would have known that I came down hard on that thread ''because'' it had nothing to do with the merits of the desysop and everything to do with process wonkery. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
			\|-
	:You should read some of what you've been posting lately and think about how it looks to a detached third party. You sound extremely angry and tense. If that's the case, take a step back - "vultures that infested the AC/N talk thread" is a ridiculous comment and unworthy of you. A number of well respected contributors expressed their concerns about a decision. Instead of calmly engaging in the discussion, you fanned the flame. Your posts stand out in that thread as having added a lot more heat than light and yet you are the one to archive it "with extreme prejudice"?<br/>Your hostility here only reinforces my concern that you (and maybe some of your colleagues) have taken very entrenched views on this matter. Please think about recusing - let cooler heads deal with this. I post infrequently these days, maybe you should give some thought to why I thought your comments sufficiently worrying that I wanted to speak up. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 00:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \| You deserve it.
	::You're correct that I am furious, but you're entirely mistaken if you think that this in any way related to the original decision or that any part of that animosity is directed at Rod.<p>I'm entirely willing to extend a vast amount of agf your way — I'm pretty damn sure that you did this infrequent post because you are, somehow, convinced that Rod got a raw deal. I can guarantee that out of all the "concerns" expressed about the decision on the AC/N thread, ''maybe'' one in ten actually cared one whit about Rod at all. Of ''those'', maybe one or two actually had enough information about the actual situation to make a mistaken guess about the rest.<p>We did everything we could to prevent Rod from being drawn into more crap then he could handle, but there is only so much we can do to protect someone when the mob pounces on the opportunity to sacrifice them on the public square for a shot at the Evul Arbcomz. Rod ''is'' getting a raw deal: he's being used by the community as a weapon against the committee, and he's going to end up being the only one paying the price for the "community"'s desire for blood. — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
			\|}
	:::The Community's desire for blood Coren? Could you tell me exactly how much of that I, or Heim, or Sandstein, or Prodego, or TenOfAllTrades, or John, or WJBscribe have for the Arbitration Committee? Last I checked, we were all administrators in good standing, I am for now still an ArbCom clerk, and many of us voted for you last election. If you can't tell the difference between concern that the Arbitration Committee might be overreaching its powers and being out for blood and using someone as a weapon, then you have certainly lost perspective. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 14:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
	::::Well, that's the problem isn't it? I ''actually'' know the fact underlying this case, I know why the decision was taken, and why it was taken off-wiki. I ''know'' that the only one who will suffer from this case having been made public is Rod. There will be ''nothing'' gained from the public case, that couldn't have been done with a rational discussion of whichever failings of process there might have been ''in a manner unconnected to Rod'' — quite the opposite: the specific issue will obscure and confuse any wider point that might have been made about how the committee should go about in the future in such cases.<p>How else am I supposed to interpret this? We've ''unanimously'' been trying to tell you that Rod — and ''only'' Rod — will be harmed by exposing this. And yet, despite our repeated warnings and invitation to continue the discussion about the general process elsewhere and in another context, some people ''insisted'' that Rod should be hung out to dry in order to — I don't know — "expose Arbcom"? Punish it?<p>If that's not it, then ''please'' explain it to me; because right now it looks like either you (collectively) don't care one bit about Rod if it means scoring some points against the committee; or that you honestly believe that all 18 of us are lying bastards. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
	----
	I've taken the time to copy this here since you (understandably) don't necessarily follow a conversation on someone else's talk page and it's better to not clutter someone else's talk page. My question above is sincere, and I ''really'' want to hear what you need to say on the subject. For what it's worth, the situation has obviously (and predictably) deteriorated since, and in retrospect it now seems that no amount of discretion could have avoided it. But surely you can understand how things might look from ''this'' side of the screen? — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	:I somehow missed your reply on my watchlist. My bad.
	:Let's look at how this appeared from Rod's end, shall we? He received an email from Roger Davies asking him to contact the Committee. He responded and got no real response, besides another note from Elen of the Roads asking if he received Roger's email. He responded to that too, saying that he had not received any specifics from Rod and as such, could not really respond to anything yet. Roger finally emailed him again and (summarizing) said the following: You're a good contributor. However, we have identified four issues of concern with you. Therefore, we have collectively decided to desysop you. If you want, you can voluntarily resign <small>(under a cloud)</small>, but otherwise, please refrain from using your tools until we actually get around to going to ]. Actually, at this point I think it would be important to quote from Roger's decision: "I'm sorry to say that we've now reached a point where the clear consensus is for you to be desysopped by motion and perhaps also subject to an interaction restriction with Malleus Fatuorum. However, the Committee is mindful of your long and dedicated service and has no intention of acting publicly in this matter unless it has no other alternative. A dignified and low-profile solution might be for you to resign your sysop bit voluntarily, with a note explaining that if you ever wish the tools to be returned you will do so via a fresh RfA." Nothing here indicates that this desyopping would be a temporary interim action pending full public review, as the ArbCom has tried to make it seem after-the-fact.
	:Now, do I think that Rod's actions were perfect? Of course not. Do I think that he should have at least had the opportunity to defend himself against the accusations? Of course. In fact, immediately upon receiving that email, he replied to each of the four points that Roger cited against him. Of them, my analysis of the email would say that he would not really have been able to refute #1, but #2-4 were perfectly refuted, either because of lack of evidence cited or because they were simply wrong on your part. #1, edit warring over ], at the very maximum for any editor would have led to an interaction ban. The whole idea of punishment fitting the "crime" seems to have been ignored here.
	:Now, that all addresses the facts of the underlying case. I mentioned ''Orangemarlin'' twice at ], but I'm not sure if I made the connection clear enough. So let me go back and explain what I meant. From what I recall in the ''Orangemarlin'' "case", the Committee had investigated a number of issues about a particular editor. After their deliberations, they decided that the editor was not at fault, but Orangemarlin was, and he was summarily banned. A very real part of the problem was that ArbCom believed it had the power to summarily ban someone without even the pretense of allowing that editor to defend himself. I'm sure that you would agree that a ban and a desysop are both serious sanctions. I really cannot understand what has changed that would make the Committee think that something like this would be acceptable.
	:Now, you want The Community™ to discuss the overreach issue with a matter unconnected to Rodhullandemu? I'm sorry, but how exactly do you propose ] do that? I'm sorry to have to make this analogy, but if the ] thinks that murderers such as ] doesn't just deserve to get the death penalty, it doesn't ''just'' lobby Congress to try to remove capital punishment, but it also ]. <small>I'm sorry for the hyperbole, but it was the only real analogy I could think of.</small>
	:Do I think Rod would be hurt by a public exposure of your evidence? No. Do you know why? Because Jclemens said this: "A slight correction: to reinforce what I said above, what was considered off-wiki leading to the de-sysop decision doesn't include any evidence not already present on-wiki. Any interested editor has access to all the evidence considered by ArbCom in private deliberation which informed the decision to de-sysop." So if all the evidence is public anyway, the harm it would have done by collating it all is outweighed by the harm you have done by chasing off a hard-working administrator as well the harm you collectively have done to the Committee's public support.
	:Your question is do I understand how things look from your side of the screen? Yes. I accept that you and the rest of the Arbitrators were trying to act in the Community's best interest. But you have to understand how it looks from my perspective: "secret trials, protestations of "secret evidence" (soon contradicted by those same speakers), paternalist insistence that its "for your own good" despite your disagreement, etc" (]). And to be honest, half of me thinks now that if I piss off people with the wrong friends, am I the next to be summarily desysopped without so much as a warning? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 04:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	::Well, as I expected, your position is very much consistent but based on partial information. For instance, you are seemingly quoting from forwarded email but obviously lack some context. Also, you are correct that the evidence to justify a desysop is public, but the reason to handle the matter discreetly was not — and it remains valid even with Rod having demanded a public case and will have to remain private even if it means that ArbCom needs to take the lumps on its reputation because much of the concerns we sought to address were in fact based on willful deception.<p>The committee will, of course, never publish email that was not agreed in advance could eventually be made public — to do so would destroy the inviolate expectation of privacy — but have you not wondered why Rod himself has not done so in a place where arbitrators could see and comment on whether what he published was accurate or complete?<p>Yeah, we've been had. We've been manipulated into a situation where we either ''act'' like bastards or ''look'' like bastards. We'll take the lumps, as usual, but you can't fault me for being more than a little frustrated at the situation. We're in a loose-loose situation, and the very people who are willing to crucify us for being so unfair are extending absolutely ''no'' good faith towards the actions of fifteen independent arbitrators, and it occurs to absolutely nobody that perhaps — just ''perhaps'' — we did the best that could be done under the circumstances and are neither evil nor incompetent? — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	:::And that's exactly the paternalistic attitude that invited the criticism in the first place: "Something is wrong with Rodhullandemu, we know what's best for him, and we aren't going to change our mind no matter what anyone says, even Rod himself." <p>Am I willing to extend good faith to the Arbitration Committee? Sometimes. You would notice that I didn't say anything in the David Gerard de-functionary-ing situation, because I knew you were working with him. But when you try to do your own thing without even the input of the editor involved? Sorry, but no. You have proven yourself to be incapable of trust in those situations in the past, and I don't see why that should miraculously change now.<p>You say that I obviously lack some context. That's fair, I only expected that. But what else do you want me to do? Did you even tell Rodhullandemu the real reason why he was being desysopped? Because right now, it really seems like you didn't. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 15:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	::::We're just going 'round in circles, and it's evident that nothing can be said that can convince you that you might not have an accurate picture of the situation. Rather than argue endlessly, we should just end this now with no hard feelings. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	:::::Coren, I ''know'' I don't have a fully accurate picture of things. Could you answer those questions in my last paragraph? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 16:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	::::::Nuke, hopefully the pertinent questions will be addressed in the case; a couple of arbs are compiling a timeline that should hopefully make the timeframe a lot clearer. We didn't desysop Rod for any secret reason, and Level II procedures weren't a fig leaf applied ex post facto; using those procedures was discussed before Rod was contacted. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 16:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::David, that's good to hear. The email from Roger Davies to Rodhullandemu, which admittedly does state that he is speaking on his own behalf but is written in such a way to as if he is speaking on the behalf of the Committee, makes no mention of such a thing, and neither does the originally passed motion. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::::I think we've all realized that we didn't word the initial motion correctly and someone even pointed out that the Level II procedure itself uses "temporary" instead of "indefinite" which we use everywhere else on Misplaced Pages, so I think it's clear that we suck at copyediting. I'm not sure what you mean here by the "real" reason and that kind of concerns me - after being made aware of the problem, we reviewed Rod's contributions and had concerns, Elen's put together specific diffs which are now posted on the case and even Roger's email gave Rod a summary of those items. If you've been told there's some other reason behind it, you've been misinformed. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	::::::::::If Roger's concerns were a full summary of what the Committee believed the whole problem is, that would be one thing. But I have read it, and I simply cannot believe that was the case. Half of the concerns you laid out were easily refutable. I simply cannot believe that such a thing is all it would take to get someone desysopped permanently. By that same logic that The Committee used in that email, I could probably get ] banned for POV pushing in medical articles combined with "obvious" bias in his administrative actions. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 17:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	Hmm - have you had a moment to look over the evidence that was posted? Personally, bias had nothing to do with my feelings on the situation. Everyone is entitled to get frustrated or have a bad day, but really, I've got a hard time understanding using the block log to insult the size of someone's genitals or ethnicity. Instead of going on the email summary, which may or may not be the whole exchange, take a look at the diffs Elen put up and see if you still completely disagree. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	:I think you might have misunderstood what I meant to say about bias: if I were allowed to desysop someone with the level of evidence that was presented in the email to Rod, I could desysop an administrator like MastCell for (1) POV pushing and (2) bias.<p>Elen's evidence, I admit, is fairly convincing. Yet three things about it bother me: (1) I fail to see what the necessity to do things privately was, or the urgency to do things so quickly that Rod was not even given a chance to respond to the accusations before him. A ], often a prerequisite in cases like this, was not opened. Indeed, I seem to remember a case where ArbCom referred the editor to RFC/U with the understanding that they would be desysopped if problems arose after that. (2) "Examine all parties" seems to have been tossed out the window here. Why? (3) I could easily think of 3-4 editors who speak in much the same tone as Rod and have simply not gotten the message after these long years. I'm sure you can think of whom I am referring to. Why go after Rod and not them? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 18:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	::One thing that might not have been well articulated here is that handling it privately was meant to be a courtesy, not secrecy. To use a real world analogy, if you screwed up at work, someone like your boss or HR might pull you into their office and offer you the chance to resign. It's something we'd do for any volunteer. We're all human beings here - we make mistakes, things in our life affect us and sometimes we just get burnt out dealing with the constant issues on the project. Nobody deserves to have their dirty laundry waved around in public and be subject to the drama that seems to come with it if there's another way to handle the issue.<p>You've suggested a few times that there was no chance to respond and all I can say is those comments suggest you don't have all of the emails related to this discussion. As for reviewing all parties, that wasn't the issue that was brought to our attention and if there are more things that need to be dealt with, those avenues are still open. I agree that there are other editors whose comments have no place on Misplaced Pages and personally feel that it shouldn't be tolerated; unfortunately the community has persistently been divided about whether or not that situation even needs addressing. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	:::I think that analogy is poor. A more proper one would be more that if you were a manager of a team in an organization and one day, a couple of Vice-Presidents stopped by to say "You're going to be publicly fired next week because of WXYZ; you can resign now if you want" and then left. But maybe I'm not fully aware of all the emails. I think I was, but I really don't think so.<p>"that wasn't the issue that was brought to our attention and if there are more things that need to be dealt with" – Nothing was "brought to your attention" at all. The Committee chose to review this situation of its own volition and could have let the scope be anything it wanted. Elephant in the room: Why was Malleus' conduct not reviewed? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 19:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	::::Hmm..again, I'd have to say if that's what analogy you think fits, it's really unlikely you've got the full sequence of emails and all of their contents. I really don't know what else to say about that, other than my analogy was the (or at least my) intention here and I believe the emails (in full) support that. I really wish I had a better answer than "well, take my word for it", but maybe it's possible to consider that one person who has all the emails might understandably be unhappy with the situation and may be legitimately explaining the way he feels about what happened. <p>I think if you look at the ANI where I believe an arbiter was involved, we were asked to review Rod's conduct and that wasn't the only request made. We've not been brought anything that I know of about Malleus, other than in Rod's response, though I do think that some of Elen's evidence mentions that Malleus' comments or responses were just as inappropriate when the two interacted. Whether or not that will translate to anything during the case, I don't know. I don't think it's been brought up yet, but I can't imagine presenting evidence relating to those interactions would be an issue, though from what you're saying it might be best to look at Malleus' behavior separately, since you seem to be referring to more than just his discussions with Rod. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


	* I think this section needs to be linked to in the Evidence page, as there is information and discussion here that people need to see. And while it is rather old now, as a response to what Coren was saying at the beginning of this section, it seems to me that Rod is just as willing as anyone else to air this issue and doesn't seem to have any problem with there being a public case. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 20:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	**Please do. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 20:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	*** Making me do all the work. :P I suppose it '''was''' my idea. Fine, i'll go do it. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 20:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	****Silver seren, what I'm gathering from your comments is that you are more interested in reviewing the processes and procedures used by the Committee in coming to a decision to remove administrative privileges (as opposed to reaching a conclusion on the basic question as to whether administrative privileges should be removed in the first place). While a discussion about the process and procedure used here - and how to approach similar situations in the future - would be useful, I don't think that it is really within the scope of the ''Rodhullandemu'' case, and trying to shoehorn that discussion into the case would probably be distracting and detrimental to a proper examination of either. –]] 20:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	*****I don't believe that this case should have anything to do with Arbcom, which has shoehorned its way into control over what should happen to Rod, which has ultimately led to his retirement. This was never formally presented to Arbcom and is a situation that should have been dealt with by the community (and was being dealt with anyways, from what i've seen). If it was the community's decision to only create an interaction ban between Rod and Malleus, then that is the community's decision and Arbcom should not try to usurp that by utilizing procedures in a manner that they were never intended to be used. Especially when it seems that, to reverse Coren's analogy from the beginning of this section, '''Arbcom''' is the one that is out for blood by only targeting Rod and completely ignoring Malleus' actions in this situation that was just as bad, if not worse. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 21:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	******On the contrary, a core duty of the Arbitration Committee is to "authorize expedient removal of permissions" in order to prevent harm to the project; this is something the community cannot do, for obvious reasons. –]] 21:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	*******Considering that this is the first time that Level II Permissions have been used and the subsequent reaction by <s>the community</s>The Community™<!-- Edited by NW -->, I think that says more than enough about said permissions. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 21:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	********I'm not so sure I would use the monolithic term "the community" - unless you truly believe that those commenting at WT:ACN and WP:A/R/C are a representative sample... In any case, this is something that will no doubt come up when the new Arbitration Policy is going through ratification. –]] 21:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	*********Fixed. Come on now, Xeno. If more than five uninvolved senior administrators take major issue with your decision, it's fair to at least say that there is major dissent. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 21:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	**********Are they taking issue with the decision, or the process? (I've to examining the process with an eye to improving the handling of similar situations) And, even if they have an issue with the decision and/or the process, does that mean they have an issue with the Arbitration Committee's overall role in removing advanced privileges? In any case, these are questions that can't be adequately answered on your talk page, and please accept my apologies for taking up a seat here =). –]] 21:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
	*****I have already drafted the evidence section and I am going to submit it now. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 21:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

	== Please blank GoRight's user page ==

	You have recently courtesy blanked Joshu Schroeder/ScienceApologist's user page. For consistency's sake, could you please do the same for GoRight? I see no reason why one indef-banned confirmed sock should get a courtesy blanking, while another gets the banned template. Whatever you feel about GoRight, he was certainly no worse than SA, who had a long history of blocks and conflict rising all the way up to arbcom. There is no good reason other than ideological preference that GoRight should get templates while SA's page is blanked. ] (]) 13:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

	:SA was blocked indefinitely, not banned. GoRight was community banned. It seems like semantics, but there has been over removing banned user templates, while I have rarely if ever seen that same drama over blocks. Maybe you could confirm with someone like Newyorkbrad that it would be OK to do so? If so, I would be very willing to courtesy blank GoRight's user pages. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 14:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

	::Nice try, but Ottava was blocked by arbcom, not the community; SA was blocked via arbcom sanctions. Seems like SA is more like Ottava than GoRight. But then, GoRight doesn't have ideological correctness on his side, and that's all that matters here. ] (]) 00:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

	:::A ArbCom ban is functionally the same as a Community ban. ScienceApologist's indefinite block was not Arbitration enforcement (that's not allowed by discretionary sanctions) but rather a block by an ]. I don't think it really matters all that much; as long as there is a request by the party in question, I would be inclined to courtesy blank the page, but I do want to be sure. I have left a note with Brad ]; hopefully he can clarify the matter. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 00:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

	::::ATren, why are you badgering NW over this? Just go and ask another admin, preferably one you've never heard of so they can be a neutral arbiter. ] (]) 00:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

	:::::I was asked to comment. My view is that templates of this nature serve little purpose and should be dropped either when the blocked/banned user requests it (and has stopped the behavior that has led to the block or ban), or when a reasonable time has elapsed with no further problems. However, I am not sure that my personal views on this subject have always gained consensus in discussions of these types of situations. ] (]) 02:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

	:::::: That doesn't make sense. A blocked/banned user's behavior (because they aren't editing) can't "stop" and "no further problems" can't be judged. I think all blocked/banned editors should be treated the same. They have forfeited all rights to polite treatment and a template describing their status should be placed on all their user pages. None should get preferential treatment. That's just plain wrong. Once their block or ban has expired things get back to normal, but not before then. -- ] (])

	:@ATren: I blanked GoRight's userpage. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

	::Thank you NW. ] (]) 01:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

	== Request to undelete ==

	I am preparing to present evidence in the AE sanction arbitration case. In your capacity as clerk, can you please restore the following pages for me?

	] <br>
	] <br>
	] <br>
	] <br>
	] <br>
	] <br>

	] deleted them just before the case was opened. I believe their contents are relevant to the dispute, but I am not an admin and therefore cannot view them. Thanks, ] (]) 21:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
	:I don't believe they are relevant to the case at hand—most are article drafts or otherwise related to content that Dreadstar has worked on (with the exception of the award). Why do you think they are relevant? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 21:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
	::Because I believe they demonstrate a history of editorial involvement in fringe topics, particularly the ND (]) draft. However, if you say they are not relevant then I will take you at your word. Cheers, ] (]) 22:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
	:::With the exception of the first one, none are really related. I placed the secondmost-recent revision of the first one in your list for the next month. I think it was a merely a draft he wrote to help out with some disputes they had been having on that article. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 00:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
	::::Thank you, I appreciate your help. ] (]) 01:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

	== Lara Logan ==

	That didn't work at all. As soon as protection expired, it was reverted by an anon IP, and then the usual suspects. There is no sincere discussion in Talk. The version being reverted isn't what was presented in Talk. ] (]) 00:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
	:What didn't work? The vote? The ANI? The various noticeboards where it has all come down against you? Why bother when you have an administrator willing to step over the process? ] (]) 01:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

	::Misplaced Pages, as most editors know, is not a democracy, just because you or other editors can rally some troops does not mean you are right. Misplaced Pages is not yours or his and comments like "where it has all come down against you", portray a very low level of discourse. ] (]) 03:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

	== Dm DO ==

			== Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder ==
	I did not see merge proposal at the link you provided. Do I have a blind spot? ] (]) 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
	:It was probably archived. It's not really a problem; I don't care too much. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 02:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
	::They ''should'' be merged, but I don't care too much either. ] (]) 18:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

			]This is a reminder that established ] provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.{{pb}}Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at ]. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the ].{{pb}}Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — ] 00:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
	== You have mail ==

			== Invitation to participate in a research ==
	You have mail. --] (]) 15:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

			Hello,
	Did you see this? Why aren't you replying? --] (]) 22:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
	:I'll reply in due course. I read it, and have been thinking about the matter. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

			The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
	== OTRS ==

			You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
	Hi NW, I'm sure you're busy, but I wonder if you could check the permissions-commons list. I have an image that I'd like to get on the Main Page, but I need the OTRS rubber stamp. Thanks, ] \| ] 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
	:I have access to this queue. Which image do you need checked? ] 17:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
	::Never mind. Found it in the queue. Verified and marked as such Commonsside. ] 17:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

			The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
	== Suspension of Rod's case ==

			Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
	Did I miss some sort of discussion somewhere where this was decided? Because, otherwise, this seems like some method to drown out discussion and start it back up when most of the people involved are no longer going to be interested in continuing it. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 22:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
	:Private discussion among the Committee, but from what I understand, the motivations for the suspension seem to be on the up-and-up. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
	::Which means...? <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 22:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
	:::Can't say more unfortunately. But I do believe that the Committee is definitely acting in Rod's best interest here. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
	::::Okay. :/ Why exactly are you in on these proceedings? <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 22:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
	:::::It's complicated, but it's largely because I'm a ]. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
	::::::Ah, I see. sighs Well, I hope this all turns out amiably. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 22:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

			Kind Regards,
	== Water Tribes listed at ] ==

			]
	An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Water Tribes'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 02:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

			<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
	== Action need ==
			<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->

			== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==
	on this page and in the actual proceedings. Please warn Hans Adler and Ludwigs2 that bringing me into the discussion will not be allowed to disrupt the proceedings. It's a dirty distraction tactic. I am not part of this case. The comments they have already made should be removed or refactored. -- ] (]) 17:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

			Hello,
	== JPS ==

			I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].
	re: : I figured this revert would happen, but before I reinsert the {{tl\|indef}} tag, I'd like to ask why you reverted it. are you suggesting that he's not indef blocked, or do you have a reason why the tag should not be placed on his page as it is on every other indef-blocked user's page? thanks. --] 04:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

			Take the survey ''''''.
	: I have the same concerns. If there is some special reason for why it should not be restored, please explain. Otherwise it should be restored. We do not show special preference or courtesy to some blocked editors and not to others. -- ] (]) 06:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

			Kind Regards,
	::NYB's comment above ("My view is that templates of this nature serve little purpose and should be dropped either when the blocked/banned user requests it") basically explains my view: it's not necessary or helpful at this venture and it certainly isn't applied to every blocked user's userpage. I'm certainly not the best writer; perhaps ] or ] can put it more eloquently (I have seen them make similar actions in the past). '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 06:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

			]
	:::Well, where do you suggest it be brought up for discussion? I don't generally see this same courtesy extended to other people indef-blocked for less serious offenses, and there should be some consistency to the practice so that there's no appearance of bias. Don't get me wrong, I'm not really an opponent of SA/JPS/etc. - if it were up to me who to indef-block he would ''not'' be my first choice by a long shot. SA was actually self-reflective and quite easy to work with if you got to him before he got on his high-horse about something. But frankly some of the things he did were about as bad as I've seen on-project, so special treatment looks a little funny. --] 06:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

			<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
	:::: I too think there should be no difference. I think that all blocked/banned users should have a template on their user page. -- ] (]) 06:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="afd-notice">
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
	:::::I have asked Courcelles to comment here. He might be able to help out here. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 15:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
	::::::I think there's a difference of fundamental philosophy here causing the problems, as Brangifer said above, "They have forfeited all rights to polite treatment". No- totally wrong. You are talking about a user who could have their editing privileges restored at any time, and without tremendous amounts of difficulty. Study the history of the block, and not just the time entered in the duration field; indefinite does not equal infinite in this case by any means. JPS is still entitled to be treated to a standard of decency, his block does not make him any less human, and there is no reason at all to tar someone's real name with that indef block template that serves no function at all. {{tlx\|Banned}} serves a purpose. {{tlx\|Sockpuppeteer}} serves a purpose. Both of those provide easy links to community discussions, SPI threads, or serve to keep socks together so that Checkusers can use them in future checks. The indefinite blocked template is little more than a scarlet letter that does nothing that looking at the contributions wouldn't do. Unless someone is actively causing problems or formally banned, there is no reason to tag them if they request the tag be removed, and even less sense to do it to someone who edited under their real name. ] 16:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
	Agree with Courcelles, and am a little surprised no one has written an essay ] to address this. I might throw something together on the subject. ] (]) 16:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
	:Boris - that would be useful, yes; all I'm really interested in is seeing the practice standardized. The problem I'm seeing in this case is that SA is (factually) a sockpuppeteer who is currently indef-blocked. The only difference between him and (say) ] (noting that MartinPhi got himself indef-blocked by emulating SA's tactics in their private little war) is that SA has a fan-base on project which is partly due to to a strong editing history outside of the problematic behavior, but partly due to being on the "right" side of the fringe science divide. Differential treatment due to fan-fatuation is ishy: the 'strong editing history' ''might'' be a credible reason, the 'being on the "right" side' thing is almost certainly not.

			Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 05:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
	:To be honest, I always saw those {{tl\|indef}} tags as purely informative - notices to any passersby who might be looking for the user that the user is no longer around the project. Otherwise it takes a bit of effort to figure out what's going on. Maybe what we need is a new, gentler template for long-term users who get in trouble, one that says something like "This user is currently barred from editing as a result of administrative procedures." Would that be more functional? --] 17:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

			== Edit request ==
	::Actually, there's one other difference between JPS and Martinphi, and it's the basis for courtesy-blanking JPS' page (at least as far as I'm concerned). His account is associated directly with his real-life name. In such cases, consistent with the prevailing attitude toward Misplaced Pages's potential to cause real-life harm, we have typically extended courtesy, even to users who have committed wiki-offenses far more substantial than JPS'. That said, if someone wanted to courtesy-blank or delete Martinphi's userpage, I'd be a bit surprised if anyone objected. Thus, I don't see a case for the sort of pervasive favoritism you're alleging, but that's just me. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

			Hello, Would you be willing to correct a syntax error on your userpage? You have a missing span closing tag with your toolserver link and it's reporting as an HTML misnested tag error. If you'd change<br/>
	:::Yeah, well, you haven't (to my knowledge) been on the receiving end of it, which naturally makes it difficult to see (objective psychological fact, that, not a criticism). Give thanks that no one makes a determined effort to portray you as a 'type' in order to keep you in your place - it's not a pleasant feeling.
			<code><nowiki><span class="plainlinks"></nowiki></code>
			<br/>to<br/>
			<code><nowiki><span class="plainlinks"></span></nowiki></code>

			that will fix it. Thank you and happy holidays! ] (]) 18:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::As far as the the rest, I wasn't aware that JPS was actually his real name - that sounds like a made-up name to me (though I suppose my real name would sound funny to others, too). As I said, it's not a huge issue, I'm mostly interested in consistency. it's not something I'm likely to campaign about either way. --] 19:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

			:Also, please make two other changes. The {{tag\|center\|o}} tag is obsolete HTML, and you have an unclosed {{tag\|center\|o}} tag that actually doesn't do anything, so please remove the 4th line, which is simply <code><nowiki><center></nowiki></code>. Also, the centering of the image can be simplified and brought up to current standards. In the line right after <code><nowiki>{{Babel\|en-5\|es-1}}</nowiki></code>, lease remove <code><nowiki><center></nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki></center></nowiki></code> and change <code><nowiki>\|400px]]</nowiki></code> to <code><nowiki>\|center\|400px]]</nowiki></code>. Thank you for your cooperation. —] (]) 08:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::: I can understand Courcelle's point, but still have concerns. We need consistency, and also the information that a template provides. One often sees messages left on talk pages for banned/blocked editors because others don't know they aren't around. We need consistency and milder templates that are informative without being insulting. -- ] (]) 20:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

			== Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder ==
	<retracted>
	<!-- Nevermind, I didn't notice that you'd blanked GoRight's page too. I apologize for not checking first, and I commend you for applying the principle equally. I saw it right after I saved the comment, and I tried to revert but you'd already replied. You may of course restore the comment if you like, or delete this sidebar entirely, but please know that I unreservedly retract my remark and commend your action here. -- ATren

			]This is a reminder that established ] provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.{{pb}}Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at ]. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the ].{{pb}}Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — ] 00:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Have you looked at the page you are linking to recently? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 01:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC) -->

Latest revision as of 00:24, 1 January 2025

This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32	Archive 33
Archive 34	Archive 35	Archive 36
Archive 37	Archive 38	Archive 39
Archive 40	Archive 41

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Archives: 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

The ICC Barnstar

		The International Criminal Court Barnstar of National Merit
		You deserve it.

Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder

This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of National Association of Colleges and Employers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article National Association of Colleges and Employers is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/National Association of Colleges and Employers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sdkb  05:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello, Would you be willing to correct a syntax error on your userpage? You have a missing span closing tag with your toolserver link and it's reporting as an HTML misnested tag error. If you'd change
<span class="plainlinks">
to
<span class="plainlinks"></span>

that will fix it. Thank you and happy holidays! Zinnober9 (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, please make two other changes. The <center> tag is obsolete HTML, and you have an unclosed <center> tag that actually doesn't do anything, so please remove the 4th line, which is simply <center>. Also, the centering of the image can be simplified and brought up to current standards. In the line right after {{Babel|en-5|es-1}}, lease remove <center> and </center> and change |400px]] to |center|400px]]. Thank you for your cooperation. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)