User talk:HighInBC/Archive 13

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

IRC/Cabals

It's not a "conspiracy theory" that admins have worked in tandem through IRC to block/ban certain users. Did they deserve it? Possibly. That doesn't change the underlying fact that many view IRC as "cabal-ish." Additionally, your curt, condescending reply on my talkpage was bordering on rude. Any with a similar tone will be removed. If you're honestly willing to actually discuss this, I'd love to hear from you. If you're only going to reply with another vaguely dismissive note, don't bother. Bellwether ^B_C 14:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you know what a cabal is, cabals run in secrecy, the channel has a wide audience of people who often disagree with each other, and its members list is published. Cabals aren't like that. I don't know what was rude about my comment, you asked I answered. If you don't like my answers, don't ask. But frankly you are putting me in the position where I must prove the cabal does not exist, negative proof is not possible therefore I am at a loss. I am on IRC every day, and it just does not happen. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I will tell you what, you prove that there are no unicorns, and once you have accomplished that I will set out proving there is no cabal. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it a magical property of cabals that saying one doesn't exist automatically causes it to pop into existence? :) —Krellis (Talk) 15:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no cabal. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously though, you are thinking of unicorns. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, no disrespect or condescension in this thread. What a laugh riot you two are. Mocking other contributors is always a best practice, right? Bellwether ^B_C 02:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry man, but this "IRC cabal" is a mythical beast. I have spent a lot of time in that forest and have not seen such an animal. It was my intention to be metaphorical, not condescending. _(1 == 2)^Until 02:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sig

Hi, just to let you know your sig isn't showing properly in IE; The 'until' isn't showing at all and the '1==2' part overlaps the timestamp. — Edokter • Talk • 17:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, I have seen it. It is till legible. The problem is that IE does not really follow the accepted standards for html and css. May I recommend Firefox? _(1 == 2)^Until 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Its been like that a couple times in my version of Firefox, but probably just a display glitch due to the version I use (Minefield/3.0b5pre). Mr.Z-man 17:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard that before too. I will probably change it one day when I come up with something else creative, I am growing a but weary of the current one. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Swirlboy39's rollback

I came across this post on ANI. For the record, I did turn Swirlboy39 down once before when he asked me for rollback directly a few weeks ago, and the main reason I did that was because he was very new at the time, and hadn't done any vandal-fighting, so I didn't know how he would use rollback. When Swirlboy39 requested rollback on RfR, I reviewed his contributions, and found that he had been using Twinkle correctly, and so I granted him rollback: edit count isn't important to me. I would have mentioned this on ANI, but seems the thread has been marked as resolved. I hope this explains my reasoning. Acalamari 23:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's cool, I would not have done the same thing, but I have no objection to you doing so. It is clear you made the decision carefully. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, heh: thanks. Much as rollback is easy to remove, that's not an excuse to give it out recklessly, and while it's just a simple tool, it should be given out carefully: time will tell whether I made a good decision or not. In the meantime, thanks again. Acalamari 01:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Icon

You said I think it should stay, and I don't think there is a consensus to remove it. I also think that attributing bias to a genderless orange icon is just not accurate. You didn't provide any reason why you thought it should stay, and it's not clear that anyone else thinks it should, so I'm curious about that. More to the point, I ask you to consider that Wikipedia is already far, far too complex for newcomers, and that removing something that has no function is a way of making Wikipedia just a bit more user-friendly. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the little guy, that is not much of a reason, but there is also not much reason to remove it. If a valid reason came about to remove it, I would support that. I also think it is a bit offensive to assume something is racially insensitive because it is perceived to be white. White does not equal bias. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(I've copied what was in Archive 12 to here in order to respond.) For the record, (a) I did not comment in any way as to whether the icon was offensive; (b) I find that matter to be irrelevant; and (c) I did provide a valid reason to remove it - removal makes the Wikipedia screen less complex. (I assume you don't think that unnecessary complexity is a good thing.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree you did not say anything about why the image could be offensive, I only mentioned that part because that was the primary reason being presented for its removal in general. I don't think it makes it more complex, it acts a bit like a bookend stylistically cordoning off that group of buttons. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of the bookend analogy; in any case it's an unneeded bookend. But I understand your position; thanks for the explanation. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

reforms

Hey there. I have a question to you, inspired by but not exclusively related to your input here: Over a span of several months I have seen you comment in various debates, regarding e.g. RfA reform, and whenever something even just remotely smells of potential reform, your comments appear to be reliably directed against any form of change. Is that just my own biased perception, or is there any particular reason why you are so much opposed to administrative reforms of any kind? Dorftrottel (troll) 05:57, April 1, 2008

Reforms I have recently endorsed include Wikipedia talk:User page#Exception to WP:BLANKING and Wikipedia talk:No legal threats#"On_wikipedia". I support or oppose proposals based on my perceived merit of them. If an admin reform proposal appeared to me to have merit, then I would support it. I have agreed upon changes in the blocking policy in the past, which effects admins directly. I don't have a "camp" or a pre-decided position, I am much more complex than that. I don't want to say it is "just" your biased perception, but it is playing a significant role in your mis-perception of my position. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. Dorftrottel (bait) 05:50, April 3, 2008

(1==2)

You first have to define == :

A == A

I saw this in a grant proposal once, and almost died! It was from a string physicist writing in a biotech SBIR application.

His particular example was to define the arithmetic equality:

A = A

Otherwise, = is not defined, and variables with identical symbols on the left versus the right side of the equation are not necessarily the same.

This is why when a mathematician comes up for tenure, no one can evaluate their work.

A = A might not even be sufficient: One could define Left A to be Half of Right A and define '=' to be equivalent when the right side of the equation is twice the value of the left side.

In WP, this discussion would be big NOR trouble.

(I actually prefer to put up code rather than Latex.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nukeh (talk • contribs) 00:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case "==" is defined as "exactly equal". Of course I am using the notation for Perl. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Same thing in Mathematica where you can get T or F output for some pretty involved stuff on both sides of the equation. Have you found any good translators for bringing code into Latex for WP? I get unicode errors when trying to convert Mathematica into Latex. Doug Youvan (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to Deletionpedia

Hi, I see you deleted the link I just made to Deletionpedia from the Deletion Policy page. Any particular reason? I'm not promoting the site (I only just found out about it myself, from the discussion over at the village pump); I just think it would be useful and interesting to many users who have got caught up in the issue of deletion on Wikipedia.--Kotniski (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The web site is not part of project, it is one of many Wikipedia forks and there is no reason to mention it in the policy. And while it may not be your intention, the result of that link being there will result in the site being promoted and give the appearance of some type of connection with the project.

If you disagree with my opinion on this you can go to the policy talk page and seek opinions in the matter. I will respect whatever consensus emerges. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll take it up on the talk page (not now; when I get some time). On the surface, though, I don't see that external links are any more objectionable on policy pages than on article pages (unless we have a policy on that somewhere). And this site isn't really a fork, since it specifically offers content which can't be accessed directly on WP.--Kotniski (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing what the communities opinion on our two positions are. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you be any happier if I put the external link on a Help: page only (with an explanation that the site has no connection with Wikipedia), and a link to that Help page in the "See also" section of the policy page?--Kotniski (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Kotniski, I don't think it belongs on any of our page. When the community decides that Wikipedia does not want to continue publishing an article, we also don't want to link to that article. Often articles are deleted because they are incompatible with our goals, and if that web page keeps them anyways that is fine, but we cannot be involved. Think about it, we delete and article because it is a BLP nightmare, we don't want to be linking to it. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have started a section on that talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That is fine, but please do not return the link until there is consensus to do so. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

admin

Hey, you may be right, but I can still do more good work with admin than without. Thanks for at least getting involved, it seems ther is a lack of people that even care.... which I did not expect.Wjmummert (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:HmmIdontgetit & User talk:Whathellno!

Why do you keep deleting these talkpages? These are vandals, and they will never recieve warnings given to them if their talkpages are deleted. Lradrama 15:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not vandals. It is one person, see the edit summaries in their contribs. I am deleting the pages to deny recognition. If you see "HAGGAR" in the edit summaries, it is a nasty troll. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean now, after watching it continue under different names. Good work :-) Lradrama 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Moreschi again

Since you already dealt with this some, I would like to point you to: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Second_Issue in case it is unnoticed for being put as a subsection. Thanks. KV(Talk) 03:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

this user just takes AN/I as a substitute for actually seeking debate and presenting his sources. The bona fide discussion is at Talk:Hermetism. The noise at AN/I is cheap forum-shopping. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 07:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I will leave this to others. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeremiah Cheatham outing

Since I saw that you protected User talk:Jeremiah Cheatham due to his threats, I'd see that he has started outing people. Not good. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to be done about it I am afraid. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thought on IRC

Just saw your comments on the vote. Why isn't there some repository that logs any and all admin-IRC activity that any admin can review? That would probably solve 50% of the drama right there. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an official log would be the way to go, but I don't think it is needed. If people really want to conspire they will send a private message. Instead we can just make sure each admin is responsible for their own actions. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but a combination of an official log that any admin can review and detailed on-Wiki accountability for all off-Wiki derived actions would pretty much nip the majority of disruption related to this in the bud, since anyone with admin status (as all admins are entitled to admin IRC access anyway) can review whatever may have happened then. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Or when an admin does an action per "consensus" on IRC we blame the admin instead of the IRC cabal. Mr.Z-man 17:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Zman put it well. There is no such thing as an off-wiki consensus, and admins need to know that. But the problem is not that admins are using off-wiki consensus, that is very rare, it is that admins using their discretion after seeking advice are being accused of following an off-wiki consensus. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And semi-public logging of IRC would help do just that with evidence, quashing drama. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support the idea of a timestamp and a checksum of each post being recorded and made public but without the content. That way if someone did have the content of an IRC post then they could prove its authenticity. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would you want to restrict any admin-IRC content from admins? Why wouldn't any admin in good standing be allowed to see what happens there? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If people want to be present and logging they are welcome. I don't seek to restrict anything. I think it should be on the onus of the admins in the channel to decide if a log should be shared. There are sometimes BLP issues that require a level of discretion. The idea behind the checksums is that everyone would have access to the ability to confirm content they already have. There are already logs on who was in the channel at which time. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If I were an admin, but offline and with my computer shut off at 2am my local time, what harm would there be in my reviewing what was happening in the admin IRC channel while I was asleep, content included? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No harm at all, and if you can find someone ready to share those logs with you then great, but it should be because that person trusts you not because an automated system handed it over. Alternately you could stay online and the people speaking will be aware of your presence. The sad fact is I don't trust all admins equally, and I hold back sensitive information when certain people are online. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Then that information shouldn't be on the IRC channel at all, if it's so sensitive it can't go on there. But there needs to be a standardized way for any one who has access to the channel to review what is happening there. Thanks for your time. Action on such an item would need to be a proper Wikipedia proposal, for the wider community to make the decision on such action. Thanks. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between talking in a room full of people that may repeat what you say, and a room with a big tape recorder in it. Something can be sensitive in a way that I will trust a group of peers not to repeat it unduly, but at the same time be something I would not want a record of for any of our 1500 admins to look at. Imagine a room with 1500 people in it, do you trust all of them?

If the channel is logged then there will be an even worse signal to noise ratio. Those good faith admins who seek honest advice will use the publicly logged channel, and those who seek to conspire will use private messages or another channel. So while the log may be open to scrutiny, who do you think gets all the scrutiny? The good faith admins.

This is a question of practicality, the internet cannot be logged. If you put logging in the channel it will only reduce the effectiveness of the channel and drive people who wish secrecy for both honest and nefarious purposes to simply use another medium. Back at square one, sans the IRC channels privacy.

Every time there has been an incident on IRC we have pooled our logs and very quickly found the truth of the matter. Fake logs are quickly dismissed as being the one that does not match all the others. This system works just fine, we don't need this.

The crux of it is that discretion needs to be used when repeating the content of that channel, and an automated logging system that any admin can look at is not discretion. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And how long was Archtransit an admin for? Long enough to get a copy of all the logs and set up an account on a free webhosting site at least... Mr.Z-man 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this thread...

I'm somewhat curious about why you wanted that conversation to stop. I don't mind as the topic was pretty much dead anyway, but your reference to WP:BEANS implied to me that you thought the conversation might lead somewhere that could enable someone in trying to beat the system. MediaWiki and all it's extensions are open-source, full knowledge of how they work is easily obtainable. Where could the conversation have gone that would have done any more damage than someone reading the source code for the site?--Dycedarg ж 01:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you have misunderstood. The link to WP:BEANS was in reference to my own comment, and nobody else's. _(1 == 2)^Until 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry if I misunderstood. You were being a bit vague you know.--Dycedarg ж 04:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am mysterious and subtle. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful commentary removed

[1] I've removed some unhelpful comments because the only purpose they served was to cause more drama. While I feel the spark of the "discussion" was other editors and not yourself, I still felt it would be appropriate to alert you to the removal of your responses (mainly because your comments would make no sense whatsoever if I hadn't). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It is better that it was removed by someone uninvolved. As usual, your wisdom matches(or exceeds) mine. Keep up the good work. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.