User talk:GRBerry/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At this point I became an admin. Subsequent archives are by Werdabot, so in the order conversations became stale rather than the order they were created.

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

SELF NOTE

At AN/I, I promised to investigate the indefinite block of EliasAlucard (talk · contribs). The blocking admin had said that he would reverse if one admin disagreed. 22:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is watching this thread after this time, I find the user's article space edits to be fine. His talk page edits do at times (and not at other times) demonstrate the problem that led to blocking. I can't see this editor being able to successfully resume editing under the old user name. Were he to return under a new username, he could probably be a more productive user than if he returns under the old, where he will be a drama magnet. I won't act at this time. GRBerry 20:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A proposal

Hi GRBerry,

Could you please take a look at my proposal here [1].

I think this is important given the current waves of secular attacks on all religions. Thanks in advance.--Be happy!! (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock vs. meat

You are right that socks and meat can get confusing. Enjoy researching my Iantresman days. It'll make for enjoyable reading if nothing else. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ill Considered Accusations

Regarding your speedy closure of this notice, I must protest that even on the Arbitration Enforcement page, SA personally attacks me as a "known provocateur" and no one says anything about it. Note: I am not "offended" by this remark, since it is not true. But personal attacks are simply not allowed, whether or not the object takes offense, especially here where the editor is under a specific ArbCom restriction against personal attacks. SA has accused me of "stalking" him before; of course, the accusations went nowhere, since they are false. Dlabtot (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I closed it fast because I had already examined the discussion with Childhoodsend even before you posted to WP:AE, and it was quite clear that 1) no sanctions on SA would be forthcoming for that thread, especially today and 2) the AE thread was going to degenerate into a flame-fest/snake-pit if not shut down. You may not have been aware of the extra stress SA is under today, but I was and am. I may have been too subtle with the messaging, but the second sentence in the closing summary is intended as a rebuke to SA and Filll. Similrly, the closing message on SA's talk page ends with a conditional sentence for a reason. GRBerry 17:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I misread your closing message and took it as a rebuke against me, and I haven't seen the one at SA's talk page. I think your rebuke may have been too circumspect. Dlabtot (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NFCC 8 revisited

You were involved in this discussion, so I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Criterion 8 objection. howcheng {chat} 21:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA

This is one of those things that means nothing, but yet is fun : )

You and I were "granted admin status" the same week. (I'm not sure if I know the other two...)

Anyway, Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 01:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Anastasis Michael

Okay, WOAH. I thought restoring the last one restored the history behind it. What would be the user of restoring selected revisions without restoring the entire article history?? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are bad attacks (or copyright violations) in the history, one may wish to delete everything prior to them, then move the page and delete the move target, then undelete the history at the original page, then revert to the last version of the article. This way you eliminate the attacks/copyvios from the history. Or if an article has been deleted more than once, we may only need/want the latest incarnation around. The default action if you click no boxes is to select everything; when you use the checkboxes you restore only the versions checked. GRBerry 13:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's useful information. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're good

Wow. You said almost the same stuff I said. People disagree with me but not you. You have a way with words :) Friday (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I read that as them replying to both of us, because our posts are immediately adjacent. Of course, I did reiterate some of the disadvantages of the medium, because I don't consider them well known. Few people even consider such issues. And we have an unending stream of new users, and new admins, most of whom are young enough that they will have grown up with the media and not even suspect the way that it affects their behavior. Is there any way that we could make your essay on the matter more prominent? GRBerry 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ohh, you may be right. There may be an important difference between "well known in general" and "well known to people who have thought about the issue". This seems bizarre to me- I used IRC 15 years ago or so- I always considered it an "old school" kind of tool, not something the kids are into these days. I found some old essay and put it into the category for user essays on IRC. The basic problem as I see it is this: Wikipedia has matured in the past few years. IRC is just like it was 10 years ago. If things happen on the wiki that even hint of some group of high school kids in a chat room being "in charge", this risks bringing the project into disrepute. We don't need more of this stuff, we need less of it. Friday (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I hit college when zephyr was new, and learned the disadvantages of online chat media at the beginning. (I also knew personally most of the members of the development team.) I also learned then that I could either be productive and thoughtful or use chatting programs, pick only one. Administrators should be thoughtful and use judgment... GRBerry 16:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted cabals

I shied way from closing that one, not least because I didn't find the right words for expressing as convincingly as you what I read in the discussions as well.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Deletion Review Barnstar
A Deletion Review Barnstar, for your long history of thoughtful and sound DRV closures -- but more specifically for the deleted cabals closure, which was one of the best, and for a very tough discussion. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I second the Barnstar : ) - jc37 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

Sorry to mess up the formatting at WP:AE, and thanks for fixing it. I don't tend to habituate such pages these days, my time on Wikipedia is more limited nowadays. All the best, Hiding T 19:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Closure

Dear GRBerry, you recently closed this discussion. Per this diff, it seems as if the behavioral issue is still unresolved, but has just shifted from Scrubs episodes to Firefly characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to be surprised. I see another ArbComm in the future. GRBerry 18:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I almost think the previous case should be reopened in some manner as the past discussion was marred by the participation of a confirmed resurrected sock account (User:Jack Merridew, whose previous incarnations include in chronological order: User:Davenbelle, User:Thomas Jerome Newton, User:Moby Dick, User:D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, User:Note to Cool Cat, User:Diyarbakir, and User:Senang Hati) and another (User:AnteaterZot, whose socks include User:Aipzith, User:PatrickStar LaserPants, User:Noble Sponge, User:Lord Uniscorn, and User:Only Zuul) who was also confirmed by checkuser as part of a different sock farm. Both accounts contributed considerably in the disucssions and on other similar discussions in which they used their alternates to harass other editors. I wonder if the case would have turned out any differently minus their participation? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on my talk page. Nothing makes a vandal-fighter prouder than when a vandal does them the honor of vandalizing their talk page! ;^) --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

page deletion

hi. sorry, could I please suggest that we not delete the wikilobby page at AN/I? it appears likely there will be an ArbCom case, in which cae that entire discussion may be of great significance. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The talk page, which is all that I deleted, won't be significant; one editor posted one comment then blanked 6 minutes later while simultaneously moving his comment to the main page. [2] GRBerry 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

kyra

been around [[kyra phillips]] (1) lately? and of cource, by bracketing that I mean the wikipedia article, not the natural person. you cited the goal of creating an encyclopedia there as criteria for removal of content from a talk page. some may have a goal of getting at issues relevant to character as it relates to journalistic integrity. personally, i'm neutral when these interests arise in competition. thought you might like a sense of what may be pushing forward back. if you could let anyone else know...? just a a heads up. Phil E. Transplant '08 15:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign

Who was the lone editor? This is heading for RFAR and the information there may be relevant. I thought there was more than one contributor. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See reply in next section. GRBerry 17:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ming Dynasty

Hello. The contentious issue in the article was once again the map, but Wiki administrator User:Nick has recently deleted User:LaGrandefr's image, so the issue is pretty much squashed right now. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking the edit protection off of the article now, so that I can finally edit the Tibet section and fix some terrible grammatical mistakes by LaGrandefr (I don't fault him too much, English is obviously not his first language).--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Characters

Didn't feel like muddling up the clarifications page, so I decided to comment here. I agree that there are problems on both sides, and that it will probably wind up at Arbcom again. That's why I have basically ceased editing fiction articles ... it seems that any action I take will simply be reverted, and, if I try to preserve my changes, I'll get whacked with a block, if not now, in the future. My main concern is that there doesn't seem to be anything done about disruptive behaviour from the side opposing TTN/Eusebus/etc. TTN has been blocked essentially because they complained, and no one turns around and notices the behaviour of the other editors at Final Fight: Streetwise, or other articles with similar editing histories. Allowing the restrictions against TTN to be interpreted so broadly that they essentially prevent him from editing is unreasonable.Kww (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

AE thread

I have closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Martinphi. Please note my closing comments. I am informing you because you posted in the discussion. Vassyana (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists

You said "I know of multiple editors in each faction who have effectively developed enemy lists of other editors they want banned". I agree that sort of thing needs to stop, but did you read Nealparr's comments? "After years of this madness, Wikipedia has collected some ban-happy admins with grudges and axes to grind." - I know you wouldn't act like this, but are you so sure that these ban-happy admins don't exist? How would you deal with admins who (under the pretext of cleaning up the editing environment around a contentious article) include people on their 'hit list'? It is incredibly difficult for people to stay neutral, dispassionate and uninvolved. Is that possible for admins? I'm asking you because you get involved with this sort of thing much more than I do. Carcharoth (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that admins such as Nealparr describes do exist. The Arbcomm needs a good definition of uninvolved admin here, that is close to the WP:ARBPIA definition - has never been involved in a content dispute on a related article.
I'm not sure this will go over well. First, there is a well organized, active group of editors who are badly confused about what WP:NPOV requires; they think that the scientific point of view is the neutral point of view - they want the discretionary sanctions only applied to others. Second, There is a group of people who push their favorite pseudo-science view. Those two camps are problems. Third, there are editors who want well framed articles that neutrally discuss the topics - these are the editors we have to identify and leave free to edit. The third group can be distinguished from the second by breadth of editing interest, they don't have a narrow focus and the second group does. The first group is harder to distinguish from the third, because they also edit across broad ranges of topics, but have no interest in articles that adhere to the neutral point of view. The tests here are whether they want to work with others, whether they change their mind when shown new evidence, and whether they want articles on pseudo-scientific topic X that focus on why it is junk rather than on what it is. Doing anything about the first group will be contentious, even when accurately identified. GRBerry 16:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I agree with that, and it's nice to have the thoughts confirmed by someone more active at arbitration enforcement. I think the "know yourself" arbitration principles are relevant here. There are some people who should know that they hold strong views on something and hence should not be getting as involved as they are. The standard excuse is "bit no-one else will do it", but they don't realise that they are part of the reason why others don't get involved. Carcharoth (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

AA restrictions

You gave a decent overview of how the AA 2 restrictions could/should be applied; perhaps you have some additional thoughts on how we put that into practise: WP:AN/AE#Eupator. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 16:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi GR

Oh well, all seems to have worked out in the end. Had 4 months off Wikipedia to do some proper work like a big project on Duns Scotus. Best Peter Damian (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Review

If you have the time or inclination, I'd like to request that you review a DRV closure. There is also an associated discussion at User talk:Neil. In addition, Neil has started a thread at WT:DRV.

I would be gratefully interested in your thoughts/opinion. Thanks in advance. - jc37 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I opined at WT:DRV. GRBerry 13:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments.
(I think you misunderstood the tenor of my request, but whichever.)
As you note, I've seen other closers suggest relisting at AfD.
And I personally think it's odd that you consider there to be is a difference between the closer listing and the closer suggesting that others list.
(And while I have a guess, I'm still not certain why others were so afraid of further discussion.)
Anyway, my intention when asking your opinion was in the hopes for your insight (ie. learning), and if it turned out that your opinion (which I've respected in the past) would be that there was something awry, that I would defer to you.
So that's what I'm going to do.
I've reverted my closure. Feel free to close as you wish.
Thanks again for your insight. - jc37 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with suggesting a relist by an editor who wants it deleted. Your saying that any admin can speedy delete if no relist occurs was the problem with the close. GRBerry
Perhaps it's because I'm more active in CFD/UCFD (both of which have changed the "D" to discussion), but I felt that sending it to AfD was to send it to "further discussion", not to nominate it for deletion. Which was the whole point of the closure. I felt more XfD discussion was probably necessary to find consensus. As those commenting each had their own separate opinion. - jc37 18:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You'd have been fine and gotten no significant feedback if you took it to AFD as part of the close, even as a "technical nomination" without opinion on your part. It has been a while since I've done a technical nomination myself, but ending the nomination with a statement like "Opinions mentioned at DRV included keeping as a separate article, merging, and deleting. What is your opinion?" might have worked well.
I think a significant difference between CFD/UCFD and AFD is the number of editors who attend to the area generally. Many more editors are active in article space issues than in thinking through categorization. Thus there are different standards. (A second difference is that to merge or rename a category, you technically have to delete the old, while for an article a merge should not include a deletion.) GRBerry 18:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but (in my experience at least), it's more the technical aspects and intent of usage that's different (such as WP:OC). While an afd may devolve into keep/delete, it's not the only option, and probably shouldn't be the only option. (As was noted even by those commenting in this particular DRV.)
And yes, I've done technical/neutral noms myself. I just thought it made more sense to defer to those more interested, and allow them to nom. Especially since they obviously knew more about the subject of the article than I : )
I already explained on Neil's talk page why I added the last clause, and, in general, I've found it's usually best to add an "in case of..." clause when relying on the actions of others.
And thank you for your thoughts and comments. In the past, I've asked other DRV regulars, but I noticed you active on that page (and as I said, I respect your opinion), and so asked you. In my opinion everything about Wikipedia can be an ongoing, daily learning process, and asking questions, even if you feel you may be assured of the answer, is often a "good thing" : )
Thanks again. - jc37 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


RE: Zorpia.com's deletion closure

The request was closed because no one has done a userspace draft. But I wonder what userspace draft means? I asked the other guy and there was not response. Web 2.0 Junkie (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Users can use Subpages in their userspace to write drafts of articles that may or may not merit existence, or to work on one before it is ready for the encyclopedia. An example would be you writing this one at User:Web20junkie/Zorpia. GRBerry 16:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)