User talk:28bytes/Archive 39

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For being posistive and a good attitude Hulkster1 (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Take the hint

When KCS stated "With all that said its apparent that this ain't going to pass so if someone wants to close it feel free."[1] on the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard I think it is as close as a proud man will come to withdrawing. Please recognize the propriety in following through with that suggestion. My76Strat (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to that. I've closed it. Hopefully he will have a more enjoyable weekend without having to check in on it. Best, 28bytes (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. Just wondering. Should that have been 3rd attempt? I know the username is slightly different but I think its a little misleading otherwise. Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I filed it under "Kumioko" here, so I think we're good. 28bytes (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh ok I was looking here. Kumioko (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that one just goes strictly by username, I believe. 28bytes (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edit of Robert Clark Young

Your first impulse was definitely correct. Of course nobody wants to see the autobiography of a peacock. Did someone pressure you to revert? Even if you do think the guy merits an entry, I think his notability is based primarily on the Qworty scandal, not on his self-proclaimed literary merits - has he ever received a single decent review? I'm discussing the possibility of a Project Qworty on my talk page - might want to take a look. It's going to be a lot of work, undoing the damage Young has done to Wikipedia. And yes, we can start by dealing with his joke of an autobiography. NaymanNoland (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

My revert was to remove the AfD tag... I closed the AfD I filed once it was clear that there was no support for the idea of stubbing the article. I didn't revert my removal of the COI material, as it would have been – and is, IMO – a terrible idea to leave the article in that state when we know the background of how it came to be that way. Unfortunately, I seem to be in the minority on that point. 28bytes (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Where was this discussion? I missed it. At any rate, there's no way that the peacockery should be allowed to survive - I've edited out a lot of it, but a lot more has to go. Does anyone really want to read how hard it was for him to adjust to a life of literary success, when he apparently never once experienced literary success? Do you mind taking a look at my edit and telling me whether it's appropriate? NaymanNoland (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Clark Young. 28bytes (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I completely agree that the peacockery needs to be removed with a chainsaw. Stubbing 20K to near 0 and then hauling the corpse to AfD isn't the way to do it though — that strikes me as revenge-based decision-making in itself. There will be plenty of eyes on the piece in the next week, let's see how it changes. If at the end of that time it still offends thee, then by all means open up an AfD nomination on the subject — it's a pretty close call. There's no rush, stay calm, don't make mistakes that will be blown out of proportion under close scrutiny. Everything rational and by the book. Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Stubbing it was absolutely the right thing to do, especially since the previous history was still available to use to rebuild it in a neutral way. I really don't understand why you re-inserted all that puffery, some of it unsourced, without vetting it first. 28bytes (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Patience, my friend, patience. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue. Not one of mine, but a virtue nevertheless. I am trying to remove myself, inch by inch, from this mess - I really don't think I should be doing any further editing of Robert Clark Young's page. It's hard to stay both patient and distant, I must confess, when you watch Qworty's team of self-righteous cronies come to the defense of him and his autobiography, but I'm trying. [inappropriate comment redacted] NaymanNoland (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It is "Qworty's team of self-righteous cronies" who still keep me frightened away from doing much with Wikipedia, anymore. They have been very hurtful to me and my family. Best wishes in how you proceed forward. Taram (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Rome wasn't built in a day, nor his article, obviously. Give it 6 more days. Grit your teeth. Practice darts, go pub-hopping, read a book, mow the lawn... You'll see, it will work out without "extraordinary measures" that might end up backfiring and giving WP a black eye... Carrite (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

consider deleting the Norops article please.

I have just written an article caled Norops (clade) which covers all the information in this article and more,and in furher detail,only my article treats Norops as a clade(which is the more widely accepted view) rather than as a genus.Please consider erasing the Norops article and then moving "Norops (clade)" to "Norops' as well as redirecting any links to the original page,the reason I propose this action is to try and avoid any confusion that could result from having two pages,both named Norops,and both covering exactly the same material.--Jamaican college grad (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.243.186 (talk)

XFD debate over images of deceased people in articles about their deaths

Hi! Please see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 May 20 - It is an XFD debate over images of deceased people in articles about their deaths WhisperToMe (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I agree with Stefan2 that PUF is not the right venue for that discussion, since there's no debate over whether the file's free, just whether it can be used anyway. I saw you linked to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 55#RFC: Clarifying policy on pictures of deceased persons, which is still the best guidance for such things, IMO. 28bytes (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Question

Is it a fact that Bureaucrats will soon loose their ability to rename user accounts? --My76Strat (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. 28bytes (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm considering one. When is the last day that it could practically be done?--My76Strat (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Last I heard it was pushed back a couple of months (August, I think?), so you still have a little time to consider it. 28bytes (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That's good, thanks.--My76Strat (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have my real name registered with no edits. If I wanted to rename as such, would I have to usurp it before August, or would I be able to do that gloabally at an indefinite point in the future?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You may need to check with a steward (e.g. User:MBisanz) as to how the stewards will handle that. I expect you'll be able to usurp it with no problem, but it'd be good to double-check with the folks who'd actually be doing it. 28bytes (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I shall.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

28bytes is correct that Stewards will do renames like this in the future. However, the new software is limited to renames of global accounts with less than 5,000 total edits. My76Strat and Gilderien both have more than 5,000 edits, so they would not be able to be renamed with the new global tool. I assume that over time the global tool will be refined to handle users with more edits and that stewards may be able to use local crat powers to get around the limit, but if you guys want a rename, ask now as I can't guarantee it will be technically possible under the new system. MBisanz ^talk 15:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If an account is renamed does the rename affect deleted contributions as well? If not what would be the procedure to request a page restoration for any pages previously deleted under csd-g7? :) My76Strat (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, renames apply to deleted contributions as well. Regardless, if there's anything you need restored, I or another admin in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles will be happy to help. 28bytes (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to have my account renamed. I've given this thought for a while and now is the best time to get it done. This is a form of my real name; without the middle initial or the suffix Jr. Please turn John Cline blue and consider this the last edit signed by a guitar. Thanks! :) My76Strat (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

revert ip edit Single-sideband modulation

IP made some edit [2] Single-sideband modulation, please revert this. -- Raghith (Talk) 06:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done, but feel free to revert any unconstructive edits you see yourself. 28bytes (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"As Bishonen notes in another thread on this page"

Good closing comments there, but I wrote in the same thread, actually. It's hard to get a bird's eye view of the loose baggy monster of a thread when you read it, but if you check out the TOC, you'll see that it's all one thread, and the section I started (the "new policy proposal") is merely the last of the ===-level subsections. I'd recommend you archive the whole thing in one fell swoop, removing the various partial archivings. (Or leaving them, for that matter, if you prefer. I think the archive template is infinitely recessive; I know the collapse template is.) Bishonen | talk 21:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC).

Whoops! So it is. Adjusted accordingly. 28bytes (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Good close, even though I don't agree 100% with the outcome. Well-stated, thoughtful, and fair. Granted, my opinion and a nickel will get you a cup of coffee, but I figured I'd say so anyway. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the kind words. 28bytes (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I was just going to drop a note on this as well. While I'm sure there are some aspects of this that people will not like, I think you took a difficult and divisive topic, and made a fair and consensus determined close. Good Job! (<being too lazy to leave a proper barnstar> * — Ched :  ?  21:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Very good close in my opinion--My76Strat (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. Well done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Bravo!PumpkinSky talk 22:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Nicely done! Thank you. - MrX 23:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• I was coming to also say that I thought it was a balanced and neutral close. Another one of those instances where a good Crat comes in handy, tools not required. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

These were "good closing comments" in the sense that they were very diplomatic, in that they made the rights nods in the right directions, that they were worded in a way which made sure that no one can accuse the closer of wrong intentions or bias, in that they were a well designed to end drama and in that they made an appearance of "resolving" the situation. But it was still a bad close.

But you strip away all the rhetoric and fancy language and what it boils down to is this:

What that means is that Horologium's indefinite block stands, until such time either Horologium or another uninvolved admin (after consulting with Horologium per our blocking policy) are convinced that the behavior (i.e. accusing another of misconduct without evidence and in such a way that reasonable people may infer an accusation of sexual misconduct) will not be repeated

You can put all kinds of nice words on it but what it amounts to is 1) Kiefer is indef/infinitely blocked and 2) you authorize the interpretation of his comments as suggesting sexual misconduct (please, look up the difference between the words "imply" and "infer" in a dictionary!) which was not supported by many of the commentators and by not unblocking him and, more importantly, making it very difficult for ANY admin to unblock him you imposed consensus where there was none.

Was it a good close? No, despite all the ass kissing above. Was it well played? Yes, yes it was.Volunteer Marek 01:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It was a good close in spite of your shit talkery.--My76Strat (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It was crap which is why you, MrX and couple of the other "hang him high and humiliate him" crowd have rushed over here to congratulate him (and by extension, yourselves, for another lynching well done). 28bytes, perhaps naively, gave you guys all you wanted, you, perhaps, played him just right, hence the adulations. At this point, the semi-decent thing to do is to shut the fuck up and gloat about it in private (or your favorite IRC channel).Volunteer Marek 01:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it could have possibly been a more neutral, policy-backed close. It sounds like KW hold the keys to resuming editing. Peace. - MrX 01:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A decent close would have at the very least outlined the conditions for Kiefer to resume editing, particularly since it's pretty obvious from the discussion that the original block did not have overwhelming, or even "strong" support. It didn't do that. All it did, in practical terms, was turn the word "indefinite" into the word "infinite". Without justification, against policy, against consensus. There was some nice words in the closure, there was some "on the one hand, on the other hand" sops to the parties involved, there was a lot of "cover my own ass when I do this", but at the end of the day... it gave one side of a contentious dispute (the "hang him high and humiliate him" side) everything they wanted without even leaving a crack of an opportunity for Kiefer or the people who think that this is a person whom the encyclopedia needs.

That's pretty much the definition of a "bad close". Nice words and all.

How exactly does "KW hold the keys to resuming editing"? There was nothing in the wording of the closure which would indicate a willingness to undo that or to actually hand him these "keys". You can say false things like that but... they're... just... not... true. So stop it. That's actually called "lying".

And peace yourself. How can you use that word when you're obviously abusing people? Shame. Volunteer Marek 02:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since you've so kindly painted a picture of me that is devoid of decent qualities, I can't help but wonder why you would offer your perverted version of semi-decent conduct. Perhaps it is your intention to solidify the conundrum a fore; wondering if Volunteer Marek has a worthwhile thing to say. You've done that for me and since I now know; go talk to yourself.--My76Strat (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what it is you're trying to say. Incoherence =/ eloquence, despite the fact that some wikipedia editors think so.Volunteer Marek 02:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you live a blissful existence. Enjoy your deserved sanctuary.--My76Strat (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In case my previous comment wasn't clear enough, I have no idea what it is you're trying to say. Can you try, at least a little bit, to, you know, articulate? Volunteer Marek 02:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Last I checked, I was the last admin to unblock KW early, much to the chagrin of a number of other admin, and spoke out in KW's favor in his dispute with GS's wording, yet I found the close appropriate. This isn't as one sided as you paint it VM. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 02:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I'm sorry you found my close unsatisfactory, but I think I was clear as to what I thought was needed for an unblock: a convincing assurance that he'd avoid making accusations without evidence (it was what I blocked Demiurge1000 for a while back, remember?) and to avoid phrasing things in such a way that reasonable people could infer – accurately or otherwise – were accusations of pedophilia. (And yes, I did mean "infer", not "imply". "Imply" would mean I know or knew KW's intent, which I do not; I only know how other people interpreted his statements.) Given the number of reasonable people calling for an outright ban in that discussion, I don't think that's too onerous of a condition. 28bytes (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember all this ban wrangling. The most of what I observed seem to agree that the block should remain at indefinite for exactly the same purpose; to place the onus of determining a timetable squarely under KW's control. Therefore, it was a good close; and I'm a darn fool for stating the obvious, 3 times now.--My76Strat (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I should note that Kiefer has an unblock request open on their talk page, and it has been there for a day now, so someone should go and deal with that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Letting it set IS dealing with it. Declining it prematurely isn't helpful nor is accepting it before reasonable preconditions have been satisfied. Regardless, I won't be reviewing this go around. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 10:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What Dennis said. Leaving the unblock request open was intentional on my part. 28bytes (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Countdown til some admin who has been lurking through all this decides to unblock without discussion and claim, "Oh, I was just responding to the open unblock request, I didn't know about all the drama related to it." 10…9…8… - Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I just thought the close was fine, because of the perhaps unintentional allusion to the famous political charges regarding protection of the poor impressionable young men and boys and that such charges have well known scurrilous history. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would say, strictly speaking, that the close was not good because a failure to get consensus on a block's duration should typically default to unblock, especially since the objectionable comment was rescinded. To say "there is no agreement to indef this person, but there is no agreement to shorten the block, so I am leaving the indef in place" is effectively taking a side on a dispute where neither side is seen as having the necessary support. All the "good block" nonsense just means people think it was a legit block in good faith, which does not negate the lack of consensus over said block's duration. I would encourage any admin reviewing this to just go and unblock him per a lack of consensus for the block's continuance.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry TDA, and while I appreciate the position - it's only one side of the coin. And continuing Kafziel's countdown "7..6..5" because I'd very much like to unblock here. Now, back to the "no consensus" argument - even though the whole affair had a bad stench of "now's our chance to get him" to it, and the entire concept of "he accused an editor of xyz" I felt was wholly unfounded - there were plenty of "support / good block" comments in that/those threads. So no - it was NOT a bad close. If there was absolutely "no consensus" for any block - then indeed I'd be inclined myself to unblock as a "default/status quo" type of argument, and have indeed argued that very position myself at times. A lack of consensus of "duration" is entirely different than a lack of consensus for a block in and of itself. I think it would have been more prudent for Kiefer to have emailed Arbcom or the WMF of his concerns along with any proof he had. I don't know how acceptable IRC logs are, or what's possible on that; and as I've said elsewhere .. if it is simply a matter of an editor attempting to "welcome" newish editors, then that's a good thing. If it's a case of trying to "guide" a newish editor into a POV or agenda rather than coaching them in the policies and guidelines, then indeed there is a serious problem. Now all that said: if you were to start some sort of "unblock" thread in which there was a clear "keep blocked" vs. "unblock" option, then I would likely support the "unblock" option - but at this point I think many admins., even those who hope to see KW return, are finding a difficult path to simply "unblocking" outside of trying to convince the original blocking admin. to modify their own block. I'll also note that there has been some discussion between KW and the blocking admin. on KW's talk page - so that should be reviewed as well. In the end .. Nope, I can't agree with you that this was not a good close to a thread that was doing nothing more than generating ill will and not resolving anything. — Ched :  ?  18:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Admin count discrepency

Greetings, I noticed recently that Category:Wikipedia administrators has about 1090 admins in it but I know there are only about 650. I think someone might want to do a cleanup run to remove the outdated ones. I think this might be generated by outdated usersboxes and directly transculded categories on user pages but I'm not sure. Kumioko (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That does sound like a useful cleanup project. You may want to check with WJBscribe; it looks like he has done similar cleanup in the past. It probably wouldn't be too hard to generate a list of non-admins in the admin categories, although you'd probably want to do the actual cleanup manually so as not to inadvertently mess up someone's user page layout when removing or changing something. 28bytes (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hm, where are you getting the 650 number from? According to Special:ListUsers, there are 1446 users in the Administrator user group. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good question. That was the number that has generally been thrown around over the last few months of active admins. I suspect that 1446 list includes all of them and bots. Honestly the 650 could be wrong. Kumioko (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it definitely does include bots and things: 1446 is then simply the number of accounts with the admin flag enabled, so the true number of as who should say active admins is certainly lower than that. I would be a little surprised if it was that much lower (under 50%), but it could be, I suppose. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering its the same 30 or so admins I see doing all the admin stuff I kinda hope there aren't 1400 active admins. Strange as it is to say that. It means a lot of them are just hat collectors and aren't even using them. Even more inslulting to some of us who need them and could put them to good use but can't have them. Anyway, just wanted to point it out in case someone wanted to clean the list up a bit. Not much more I can do at this point. Happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)