Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Reid (talk | contribs) at 01:07, 15 May 2006 (→Another opinion: you're right but i might not put it that way). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Conradi

For the specific issue of the use of "Willy", Conradi has now been blocked once, and given a sharp warning to not repeat. I have noticed the fact that he does just about everything *but* use the word 'liar" when referring to certain people he is in opposition to. I have not called him on it, but I have definitely noticed it.

I was unaware that there had already been two RfCs filed between him and William. Sigh. If this is all at this level now, even after two RfCs, then William filing an RfAr may be the only choice left.

OTOH, Conradi has, on his talk page, leveled some serious accusations of WP:CIVIL violations against William. I have asked him to provide specific proof of these accusations. We shall see. I still consider myself a neutral admin in all this, having never interacted with either of the two of them before closing the first massive CFD a week or two back. - TexasAndroid 18:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't pretend to be an uninvolved party but I will step up when called upon. It's a shame. John Reid 18:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have written an extensive Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Tobias Conradi. Originally, I'd thought the panel would be more interested in content issues, but early indications are they prefer inter-personnal conflict, and I've recast the request in that form. Note, I just discovered Conradi has been banned at de. Had my RfC been taken more seriously 4 months ago, this problem could have been nipped in the bud.

  --William Allen Simpson 16:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)

Hey, John Reid, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight. If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever... Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me... The JPS 22:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User page protection

I semi-protected your user page because there was massive amounts of vandalism directed towards it. Pepsidrinka 04:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please unprotect it. I'd rather have frequent edits to my user page than confusion on my talk page. Thank you. John Reid 16:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected it. As far as I saw, when it was protected, only the userpage was protected and the user talk page was not. Pepsidrinka 16:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandal sock chain puppeteer identified

I requested a CheckUser on the chain of vandal sock puppets. Between the personal nature of the attacks, and your suspicions voiced on RFAr about it possibly being Conradi, I felt it was necessary to try to find out who was behind the actions, if that was possible. The results are back, and we have our pupetteer identified. CheckUser has shown the responsible person to be "highly likely" as User:Encyclopedist. A quick check shows your opposition to his RFA was a critical factor in his withdrawl of the RFA and withdrawl from the project. It appears that he has held a grudge, and has decided to take it out on you. User:Mackensen has blocked the IP from which the sock parade was coming, so hopefully this may be over. At a minimum it is good to know what this was all about, and to know that it was not Conradi at the middle of this. - TexasAndroid 13:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's good to know. I've struck the list of test edit diffs (from RfArb) and copied it for posterity to User:John Reid/Sock attack.

I'm quite surprised to think Encyclopedist may be the actor here. I've copied his thread out to User:John Reid/Encylopedist; that was over with 5 weeks before the sock attack began. I guess this only goes to show that this user really was unsuited for adminship. John Reid 22:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe go on with your "Assume bad faith" way: Couldn't Tobias be so clever to use IP range of another user? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Tobias, I don't think you're an asset to this project. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. You've been consistently disruptive and uncivil -- not only to me. That said, CheckUser does not point to you; nobody thinks it points to you; and there's no need for you to get into it. John Reid 01:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Should we consider blocking User:Encyclopedist? Rich Farmbrough 11:36 7 May 2006 (UTC).

That's not for me to say; nobody's stuck me with the mop. This never inconvenienced me personally; a number of users racked up points reverting my pages, that's all. This user seems to have confined himself to non-encyclopedic, non-project pages -- mine only. And the episode may have passed. John Reid 11:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedist decided today to once and for all burn his bridges with the project. In a vandalism here he made numerous personal attacks on John Reid. He said, effectively, "Go ahead and block me". I have done so. He then asked on his talk page to have the pages in his user space deleted. I have done this as well. If this is what he now wants, so be it. - TexasAndroid 18:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template wizard?

I'm looking for a template wizard; would he be you? I'm trying to work up a fairly complex project involving conditionals and nested templates. Despite reading docs until my eyeballs are falling out, I still don't "get" the behaviors I see. Can we make a time to get on IRC and thrash this out? John Reid 05:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do my best to help. What time would be convenient for you? Sunday afternoon or evening would work for me. (I'm four hours behind UTC.) —David Levy 06:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm on the Left Coast these days so there's a 4-hour difference. Noon your time will be 8am my time and probably the best to get going for me, if you please.

I'll be on #wikipedia-en under my right name (John_Reid). If you have a few minutes between now and then you might like to look at User:John Reid/divbox and its various transclusions and inlinks. The mess may be nearly impenetrable at first blush but you can get the overall lay of the land and on IRC I'll do my best to answer questions. My question, of course, is Why doesn't the damn thing work? John Reid 10:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Cent

Hey, sure it's the top? Computerjoe's talk 14:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you meant to the top of the log page :D Computerjoe's talk 14:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My Signature

Dear John Reid, I have changed my sig to make it only 3 lines. Can you change your vote at Misplaced Pages:Signature Poll/GeorgeMoney to oppose?

Below is a box that shows how my poll is doing:

Template:Sigpollshow.

Thanks, --GeorgeMoney 02:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC).

George, I'm not entirely sure you understand my position on sigs -- I don't even know if I ought to explain it to you. But you're asking for comment so I'll try to fulfill your needs.

You wrote, The reason I made this poll is for the people who actually care about signature length and complain to me about it. Then, if my poll wins, I can just link them to this and say, "Most wikipedians say I should keep my sig the way it is"

I cannot fathom this line of reasoning. You don't seem to be interested in the content of others' criticisms; you're hoping for a majority who like or at least tolerate your current sig, a majority you can reference in order to support your own desires. I never have much need for this. I do what I think is right; if I'm not sure what is right I may solicit comments. But if I'm already sure what is right then I just go ahead and do it. I may listen to comments made after the fact; I respect these comments and may even change my opinion -- but it's not likely. Of course, if it's a matter of fact or of law then I may be corrected.

There is no policy at present regarding sigs -- none at all, so far as I've seen. NONE. There are policies regarding usernames and one may interpret them to apply to sigs -- or not. That may be fair or foul but it's the present state, so far as I know. So if I were to receive any criticism of my sig, I might say, "Sorry; I'll change it to please you," as a courtesy. Or I might say, "Sorry, but I like it this way and it's in policy." I would try to ignore any further comments from the same person, especially if he had nothing new to say.

So you see, I can't imagine why you are asking for my comment at all; having asked and received that comment, I'm at a loss to know why you would want me to comment further. Perhaps I was not sufficiently explicit. I will attempt to remedy this fault:

My position on sigs: A sig (the wikimarkup substituted by the MediaWiki engine for a string of three tildes) is set by the user and no policy has been shown to govern it. Therefore my position on sigs is merely my private opinion and carries no weight whatsoever nor does it require justification. The engine provides as a sig, by default, markup that echoes one's username linked to one's userpage. Various users have demanded that sigs also link to user talk pages, for convenience in making comments. I feel all modifications, elaborations, extensions, or decorations past that point to be questionable. They may be acceptable but each such addition meets with my increasing disapproval. Images, superscripts, colors, and links to other pages are all unnecessary and are often burdensome to other editors. I don't like them. Visible sig text that varies from one's username is deceptive as well as unnecessary; I really don't like these. (Example: Bar.) One is given the opportunity to choose an alias when registering on wiki; another layer of anonymity is of no value. Worst of all are special characters -- those with ASCII values greater than 127 -- and the absolute worst are double-byte characters. These screw up my editing workflow and if I corrupt them while refactoring a page then sorry. (I can think of even worse things to do with a sig but WP:BEANS.)

I believe that over-elaborate and deceptive sigs are a sign of immaturity, if not of intent to do outright mischief. I tend to oppose nominees for adminship who display these unwise sigs.

That said, I strongly oppose any but the most basic rules governing sigs. I prefer that wide latitude be given to all users and that they enjoy this latitude to the fullest possible extent. I'm happy to pay the price in inconvenience in exchange for this simple and direct way for users to advertise their characters. In the same way, I like to live in a world that permits a great deal of latitude in dress and grooming. When I see a person approaching me on the street who is dressed badly or in some extreme fashion, I am warned that he may not be entirely rational. I avoid him, do not take what he says seriously, and thus save myself much trouble. If we were all forced, as the Chinese were during the Cultural Revolution, to wear identical clothing, then I might have to work harder to distinguish fools and troublemakers. John Reid 01:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you wrote that much as a reply. You didn't have to write all that. --GeorgeMoney 02:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You asked; I'm here to help. John Reid 02:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Another opinion

The following is an excerpt from comments Encyclopedist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left on my user page -- perhaps his 43rd edit to that page, finally under his primary username. I feel it's only right that I allow the community at large to check out the substance of his complaints; having done so, for me to reply.

Pleasure knowing that you seemed to have identified me as your little menance over on your user page. And guess what? I confess. Damn right. You have come here, railing out your stupid worthless opinions and giving notices as to how great you are, while ignoring the values of seniority and actual benefits to the project. Who the fuck ARE YOU??? You are a whiny little bitch that has come here adding on their stupid bitchy little opinions, while contributing negligently to the project itself (for example, most of your contributions are in your little fucking user space!). FINE, you are ENTITLED to your stupid trivial ass opinions, so so am I. I decided that they be best aired from your crappy ass user page...

I'm truly sorry that I've offended this user so deeply. I've heard it said that a gentleman never gives unintentional offense. I did indeed feel this user was poor admin timber and I think events have borne out this opinion; but it was never more than one user's opinion. I feel TexasAndroid gives me entirely too much credit when he says A quick check shows your opposition to his RFA was a critical factor in his withdrawl of the RFA and withdrawl from the project. I don't believe my opinion is so influential; other users opposed this nominee before I did. This nominee withdrew from consideration less than 3 hours after accepting nomination; at that time support stood at 10 to 4. Had he remained he might easily have picked up sufficient support to succeed; had he been elevated I'd not have objected. Every user has an opportunity to comment on pending RfAs; none of us has the right to complain about the outcome.

If any user can point out "notices" I've given asserting my "greatness" I shall certainly strike them out. I've consistently maintained that the strength of this community lies in the number and diversity of its members. I do feel that at times we have lost focus; many of us are not here to fulfill the primary purpose of the project but rather to enjoy common resources and pursue private agendas. I suggest that we need not be quite so eager to recruit new members who do not share our core values. But I would never seek to close the community or establish any class of privileged users.

My opinions are worth as much as the next user's, no more. So long as Encyclopedist expressed his opinion on my user page, I was content. I should have preferred he had been allowed to do so freely. The existing content may be "crappy ass" but then I don't maintain it as a showpiece for other users; merely as a collection of links for my own use. It serves this function well enough from history; there's no need to remove any other user's edits from it.

The vast majority of my contribs over the last couple of weeks have been to userspace; I've been experimenting with enhancements to {{divbox}} and it seems wise to iron out all the bugs before going live with my ideas. I've put this on hold pending improvements to ParserFunctions and I will, as time allows, return to my usual rounds.

We are all different here and perhaps it's best that I make explicit what might be taken for granted. My door is open here and all users are welcome to comment. My opinions are mine alone and are worth nothing more than the standard 2¢. I tend to form these opinions carefully and am slow to change them but I am always ready to be corrected in matters of fact.

Finally, I'd like all of my fellow editors to know that my primary purpose here is to contribute to this project as best I'm able; I'm happy to help other editors in whatever way my limited skills, time, and energy permit. Please don't hesitate to ask. John Reid 05:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this whole incident only happened because you only irrationally overlook what the admin. candidate has to say, despite what he says. He had every right to question your vote, and your policy during the RfA. I actually think you are an asshole personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.240.78 (talk • contribs)

A quick look at your talk shows you're likely a certain troublesome user hiding behind an IP. I can't imagine why; if I were you I think I'd create a sock for that kind of foolishness. On the other hand, if I'd sufficiently annoyed the community that I didn't feel comfortable editing under my right name, then I'd probably go amuse myself elsewhere. I guess we're all different.

I do absolutely agree that any nominee for adminship has the inalienable right to respond to any comment I make; he may choose to question it, demand I justify or elaborate it, take offense at its content or tone, or launch nuclear weapons at his disposal. As a civil person I may even reply to an inquiry, polite or otherwise. But I maintain it is an absolute necessity of adminship that those who hold this office not take anything personally -- even if it is meant personally. A nominee may question thoughtfully, on his RfA, my comment on his RfA; he might explain something I don't understand and sway my comment. A nominee who comes to my talk page with a comment on his pending RfA is taking the matter too personally and too seriously. For me -- not for anyone else perhaps -- this cements my belief that such a user is unsuitable for adminship. He may be a fine editor and I hope he will continue to be one. John Reid 01:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)