User talk:Mike.lifeguard

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Mike's English Wikibooks talk page This talk page is for Wikibooks stuff. I have talk pages on Commons and Meta specifically for correspondance regarding those wikis - please use them! Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). I will reply to messages left here below your comment, not on your talk page unless requested otherwise. Please do the same for me unless the message was semi-automated (ie. a template message - I don't add pages to my watchlist if it's just a template message). I suggest adding this page to your watchlist so you can easily check when I've replied. The talk page for my bot redirects here. To stop the bot, replace the redirect with a note explaining why. Post a comment If you use the title box, you don't need to put a title in the body

Contents 1 Wikipedia's JavaServer Pages article and Java Programming/JSP page 2 Open discussion about Wikibooks vs Wikiversity 3 Renaming Mjquin_id to Mjquinn_id 4 Global rollback 5 Image missing a fair use rationale 6 Interpretation 7 Twinkle 8 Template:Split 9 Anonymous Talk Page Blanker Dude 10 Template:SpambotIP 11 User:Whiteknight 12 Huib 13 Krischik (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights) 14 Renames 15 Thanks 16 Proxy blocking 17 New pages spammers/COI candidates? 18 Wikijunior talk:Introduction to Mathematics 19 Derbeth (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights) 20 Featured recipe 21 Wikipedia's w:File Transfer Protocol article and Communication Networks/FTP Protocol page 22 Last change to Wikibooks:Blocking policy 23 Global Sysop vote 24 Global sysop amendment 25 Accusing 26 GSysop 27 Wikibooks:Requests for deletion#Slackersbible

[edit] Wikipedia's JavaServer Pages article and Java Programming/JSP page

Hello,

The Wikipedia JavaServer Pages article contains HowTo information about JSP which should not appear on Wikipedia and would be useful on the Java Programming/JSP page. I would like to transfer the page to wikibooks with the history information and merge the two pages on wikibooks. I think I have to ask an administrator for such an operation. Ftiercel (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Done - see Transwiki:JavaServer Pages.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Spoke too soon... the xml is huge, and the import keeps timing out. I'll do the most recent revision, and maybe during lower traffic time I'll try again.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanx Ftiercel (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Open discussion about Wikibooks vs Wikiversity

I want to open a discussion about Wikibooks vs Wikiversity. On my opinion, these two sites are too similar and it duplicates the information. Learning books and universities have the same targets. You will have information on one site for a given language and you will find the equivalent on the other site for another language. What is your opinion ? Ftiercel (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's an open discussion, I may as well note my response when asked about potential areas of collaboration between the two on CQ's talk page on Wikiversity. The third paragraph there that relates to this discussion is that there are class projects on both sites and even we can't always tell whether they are better at Wikiversity or Wikibooks, as pointed out from the linked VfD discussion. A point to note is that Wikiversity used to be part of Wikibooks. I wouldn't have been in favor of the separation had I been here at the time, but I think it's highly unlikely that they would ever be merged together again. It would seem that Wikiversity has yet to fully distinguish itself from its former parent. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 12:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Open is open, so I'll chime in here. The key difference between WV & WB is that WV is intended for original research while WB prohibits it. The recent How to Use Wikibooks for My Students effort would have been better suited to WV IMO. --Jomegat (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming Mjquin_id to Mjquinn_id

I am asking for a rename; before I use the account here too much (and there is another one pending). Does WikiBooks need more admins? -- Mjquin id (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To do the rename, please show me a diff proving you own the account w:en:User:Mjquinn_id. We do need more administrators, but those would be drawn from the ranks of our current experienced editors.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Global rollback

Hi! I have a question for you, plis ask me: I'm a rollbacker in the English and Spanish wikipedia. I do rollbacks in the Spanish, english and deutsch wikipedia. With the global rollback, I will rollback the Catalan, Asturianu and Aragonés wikipedia too, so If I send a request for global rollback, the admin accept it? Thanks, --Javierito92 (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Probably not -- but you're certainly welcome to join us for wider cross-wiki countervandalism efforts.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image missing a fair use rationale

You're asserting that because the unaltered image I captured and uploaded was of a GPL'd piece of software, the image itself falls under the GPL. I can follow that line of reasoning. Then you assert that because the image that falls under the GPL, a license classification that (from what I understand) was created specifically so that Fair Use would not be needed, needs Fair Use established. Do you mind explaining to me why this is or what I am misunderstanding? --Brandished (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I simply forgot to remove the notice to you when I fixed the licensing on the image. You don't have to do a thing - but thanks for being on the ball! :D  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking it might have been something like that, I just wanted to be sure. I'll go ahead and remove the notice. --Brandished (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Interpretation

In classifying uncategorized books, I've come across some that have a lot of text but don't say much. They are by the same user and have external links that may be spammy. Professional Crime Fighting Science and Crime Fighting in The United States have links to businessbookmall.com while Basic Concepts of Crime Fighting Science has a link to half.com. All are pretty poorly written and the odd usage of "crime fighting" over "criminal justice" or "law enforcement" is the least of their problems. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 15:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm generating reports on the domains - I'll see if there's a pattern here.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems there was. Abigor removed links, and (I think) blacklisted the domain globally.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Twinkle

Just a friendly reminder that Twinkle will have to be updated ever so slightly to reflect the new location of Wikibooks:Requests for deletion, {{rfd}} and {{rfd warning}}. Thanks. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 04:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Will do - thanks for the reminder.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Split

I saw your modification to this template and wondered if you aren't making it the same thing as Template:Subpages. Is there a distinction I am missing? -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 18:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you can check the original wording. I guess {{subpages}} can be merged into {{split}}  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous Talk Page Blanker Dude

Hey Mike. Remember the guy who came here a while back and was blanking anonymous talk pages (they had warnings on them). It was a nice little game of cat and mouse, and now he's back. I have blocked several new accounts tonight (see the block log), but I suspect he will create more and continue the mischief. Maybe this is a job for a CU? The other option is to just delete the pages he's been blanking. The warnings in them are pretty old by now. I don't really like that approach though, because old warnings inform my actions in response to new vandalism. --Jomegat (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. There were a few more accounts - all blocked now, along with at least some of the IP space available to them.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 14:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I see he's at it again. --Jomegat (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, working with CUs from enwiki to resolve this...  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 04:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:SpambotIP

You were the author of this template and it is part of your User:Mike.lifeguard/DBQ-50 list of unused templates. Is it used by some template via substitution or is this template no longer needed? -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 17:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it isn't needed. I've deleted it now.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Whiteknight

Did Whiteknight request removal of his permissions at Meta? He's no longer listed as an administrator in the listing and I was wondering whether I should remove the userbox on his userpage and update Wikibooks:Administrators to reflect this. Actually, he's not listed as a bureaucrat or checkuser either. Checking his user rights log, the last action was his, but he only removed the bot flag. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 17:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the log is here. I imagine he wouldn't mind having userboxes removed etc.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Huib

Howdy,

You have some space for me here? I guess I will try to be active here also :-D

See ya, Huib talk 17:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we could make some room :)  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Krischik (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

This person may or may not qualify for removal of tools due to inactivity. They've only made three contributions in the last year (September), none in the last month. However, admin tools were used in the past year (once) on July 6 2009. Prior to that they were used on October 9 2008 (over a year ago). Longer term, they were only used twice in 2007.

I did nominate Neoptolemus for removal of access due to clear inactivity and left a note on their talk page and sent an email, per policy. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 15:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I would include Krischik - the pattern of token admin actions which don't actually help the community yet are precisely why we don't have a set number. The policy is set up such that you cannot game it by showing up yearly to delete one page and thereby keep your tools forever. Whether they were deliberately gaming the system or not, the result is the same - no actual benefit for the community - thus removal.

Very sad to see Neoptolemus go, he was a good guy, but has moved on to other things, I guess.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Renames

It's unfortunate that the three other bureaucrats aren't helping you out at Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Renaming - three requests are pending. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 13:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The obvious solution to this (IMO) is the nomination of Adrignola as a 'crat/CU. --Jomegat (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We did lose Whiteknight recently, unfortunately, which brought our number of 'crats and CUs down by one each. I will reciprocate and say that you and QuiteUnusual both demand a lot of respect given your sustained attentiveness to Wikibooks, from my perspective. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 19:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not willing to serve as either a 'crat or CU though. And even though you haven't been here that long, you've already made more edits than me, and I was in the top 3 until you came along ;-) You have clearly demonstrated both the technical wherewithal and the good judgement I think is needed for these roles. In short, I would consider you a superior candidate. --Jomegat (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the obvious solution is to add a 'crat who is actually around sometimes. I don't think we really need another CU, but I wouldn't be opposed to it. If Adrignola wants to do the work, WB:RFP is thataway :)  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks much for the rename per my entry at [1]. I really appreciate it. — Myasuda (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proxy blocking

I've noticed that there are global blocks on proxies by those at Meta, but then I see you've done some blocks on proxies yourself. Just curious as to why those handled locally weren't handled globally. Additionally, the proxy blocks globally and locally done in the past couple years seem to be temporary, while we had quite a few done in the past for an infinite period of time. Do those infinite blocks need to be reevaluated? Additionally, those from October 2005 and earlier don't have a username associated with the blocks listed on the page linked to above. Thoughts? -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 18:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The global blocking policy prohibits blocking open proxies for being open proxies. Yes, infinite IP blocks should have an expiry set. I'd recommend 1 year since it has been a while since they've been tested. For the very early ones, the blocks should either be removed, or re-check the IP and set an expiry if it is still a proxy.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Trying my best, but there's still 5000 to go. Quite mind-numbing. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 03:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother doing it by hand. Should be fairly easy to set up a python script using m:pywikipediabot framework to do it in an automated fashion.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's easy from your perspective, but I'd have to learn Python before even getting started and then contemplate whether the community would be comfortable with a script running with admin rights. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 00:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin bots are allowed.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New pages spammers/COI candidates?

Blocked User:Raja.ccs and User:Rajaas for creating new pages in the main or user namespaces to promote capeconsultancy.com and blocked User:Cashgiftingmentor for creating user pages to promote cash-gift-trainer.com. I've added them to the spam blacklist. Potentially these could be forwarded to COIBot but it's inconvenient that COIBot only takes submissions through IRC. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 13:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The scale is small enough we don't need to worry about putting it in COIBot. BTW, we're working on getting a php tool so people don't need to be on IRC to use it. If you know php (we also need someone who knows mysql)... :D  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call myself an expert and I'm a bit rusty, but up to this point I've known enough about the basic syntax to allow several different web applications (Mantis bug tracker, Willow task/job tracker) to integrate with the user database of the forums (Simple Machines) on my hobby website (link in profile) such that they can use one login for all. MediaWiki integration was easy since there's an extension already made (though it allows them to be automatically logged-in, while my hacks still require them to enter their forums username and password for the other web apps). I like using phpMyAdmin for working with my MySQL database and constructing queries for integration into PHP code. I wouldn't be very good at manipulating a database directly on the command line and constructing queries by hand. So, I'm a hack, but maybe it's better than not having anyone. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 16:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikijunior talk:Introduction to Mathematics

Hello Mike, I'm just wondering if you are still working on the Introduction to Mathematics? I have used it for my elementary school child to some success and hope that you have the time to add more to it. Thanks, Troy205.156.36.59 (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not working on that book.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Derbeth (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

An interesting situation. Derbeth has made fewer than 20 edits in the past year, but the most recent tool uses were on Feb 23 2009, with any uses before that over a year ago. Those uses on the 23 I would consider to be under the bureaucrat tool use, as they were all for renaming a user. However, you can't be a bureaucrat unless you're an administrator, and administrative tools haven't been used for a year if you exclude the edits on the 23 I count as part of the user rename. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 13:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to post on WB:RFP and see what the community says about it. Of course, you can also email Derbeth and ask him if he wants to keep the tools. He may not.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, sent an email. I'll put it on WB:RFP too for good measure. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 13:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured recipe

Hi Mike:

I can't but noticed the featured recipe has never changed in the time I've been using Wikibooks. Since becoming reviewer I've improved many recipes to the point of featured recipe status. Below is a list these recipes. Please consider choosing from this list for future features. Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

cookbook:Paella Cooking Techniques

cookbook:Paella Roja

cookbook:Mastering the Art of Cooking Paellas

cookbook:Gambas al Ajillo

cookbook:Fabes con Almejas

cookbook:Arroz con Pollo

cookbook:Arroz Negro

cookbook:Paella Valenciana

cookbook:Paella de Marisco

cookbook:Arroz con Pollo

cookbook:Arroz con Frijoles Negros

cookbook:Arroz Tapado

Cookbook:Ossobuco Alla Milanese

cookbook:Spaghetti alla Carbonara

cookbook:Spaghetti alla Puttanesca

cookbook:Spaghetti alle Vongole

cookbook:New England Clam Chowder

cookbook:Whole, Roasted Turkey with Stuffing

cookbook:Pumpkin Bread

cookbook:Cioppino

cookbook:Spaghetti and meatballs

cookbook:Spaghetti with clams in white wine sauce

cookbook: New York City-style pizza

cookbook:Manhattan Clam Chowder

cookbook:New York Cheesecake

cookbook:New York City-style pizza

cookbook:Jambalaya

cookbook:Boeuf Bourguignon

cookbook:Bouillabaisse

Cookbook:Arroz con Frijoles Negros

(sorry, just coming in uninvited)... You can edit Cookbook main page yourself, so go ahead and change it. The policy and procedure on how to do it is here. I see nothing that says you can't just change it yourself... Maybe you shouldn't have so many Wikipedia links in a feature recipe though. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 09:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we make featuring recipes as formal as featuring textbooks. Almost certainly not. If you think they meet the standards, then I trust you. Feel free to put them up.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 06:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia's w:File Transfer Protocol article and Communication Networks/FTP Protocol page

Hello,

The Wikipedia File Transfer Protocol article contains HowTo information about FTP which should not appear on Wikipedia and would be useful on the Communication Networks/FTP Protocol page. I would like to transfer the page to wikibooks with the history information and merge the two pages on wikibooks. Tell me if there is more appropriate way to request this. Ftiercel (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made a request here. Ftiercel (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Last change to Wikibooks:Blocking policy

"If no administrator is willing to lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community."

This is not a truism, the administrative group is not static and doesn't in any way represent the community as a whole and ultimately that sense of finality that I think originally was aimed for is not in the spirit of the project (it contradicts the administrators policy, in the sense that they aren't above the rest of the community). I strongly object to that wording. --Panic (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That sentence was present in the original version of the page I imported from Wikipedia, just to note. Mike simply added it back in. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 23:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The text is a proposal, I still think it conveys an unnecessary and false idea of finality, it also promotes the abuse of the (recognized) right of refusal to act. One can even argue that by how it is worded an admin that goes against a previous stance from the previous active administrators would be acting against the whole community.

This also contradicts somewhat the text that is now on the deletion policy IIRC, and the intention expressed on the Wikibooks:Administrators policy.

Thanks for the correction Adrignola. Just to be clear here, I've gone into a great level of discussion with Mike on this subject in the past. My view is that the right to refuse to act was intentioned to protect administrators, and reinforce the notion that they, like all Wikibookians, are volunteers. It was not to excuse their actions (that includes the intentional exclusion from acting) from further analysis or reversal, especially if those actions were not based on (or failed to implement) a decission by consensus or reached by a clear processes. In the past this has lead to abuse and great controversy. --Panic (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying here. What exactly is the problem?

It is true that if a user is indefinitely blocked and no administrator is willing to unblock them then they are considered to be banned by the community. If you want to use different words to say the same thing, then I don't really see the point. This is clear and concise.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What I'm stating is that:

a) there is no purpose in stating it on the proposal text, based on the above rational of fait accompli, and

b) as it is worded it is incorrect (a false statement of facts), and may be cause of conflict or disputes, even in a corrected form it would still imply a) and be redundant, Wikibooks:Administrators already provides for the right not to act.

You should already be aware of these facts because of the functions you perform and the time you have been performing them. The "community" is an ever changing "non entity" that is abstractedly represented only by its intentions as reflected on the policies and guidelines we adopt and change (in very specific terms the community is composed by all registered Wikibookians and no one can presume to know its will, because the project is based on consensus a block by nature is a extreme failure of that process, it is the act that excludes someone from the community). The community can't in practice block anyone (it couldn't), administrators do. They do it only based on the wishes expressed by a vocal minority that participates in a consensual decission process, in a very specific time frame.

Since the vocal minority that approves policies and guidelines change overtime, as does the group that has the function of implementing those rules. A refusal to act can't be stated to be permanent (as much as as indefinite block can't).

In any case I've now expressed and explained my opposition, why the inclusion of that phrase in the proposal is extremely negative, it is up to you to see if you can bring me to see it as having any positive value or came up with a way it can be improved (as I stated I can't, in a way it becomes meaningful) the best change I came up with is to alter the "by the community" to "from the community", but that doesn't contribute anything to the text, still be incorrect since blocked users are still part of the community even if extremely reduced in the participation and the phrase continues to promote inaction as a way to advance minority policies...

See if you can live with the removal of that phrase. --Panic (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course I can; removing it doesn't make it less true. I still don't understand what you're getting at with references to "fait accompli"...  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The "fait accompli" refers to "no administrator is willing to lift the block" (how can any one assert that, only by a full participation of all admins in a discussion, I never saw it. Even if now it seems more probable with ~15 admins, it would still remain only valid in specific time period (I wasn't agreeing with the notion that it would be valid conclusion, but stating that even if it was it would still make it inaccurate). --Panic (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether you have seen it happen or not is irrelevant. You can imagine that (picking our latest vandal) any discussion about unblocking User:QuiteUnusual plays wth blocks would end with no one being willing to remove the block. Thus, they are de facto banned by the community. Even if it hasn't happened, the thought experiment shows it is possible in theory (and you can find examples elsewhere).  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 04:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Changed "by the community" to "from the project" and removed the unnecessary mention of the right not to act, keeping what I understood were your core needs.

Just because I've been watching some of those blocks. One particular user, probably a kid (this is hard to determine I'm only basing it on the actions made in the project), I was disappointed with the time of the block (indefinite), for a first time block (the user wasn't offensive only posted "spam", kid stuff, on talk pages). In the proposed text it indicates that in future, it will not be the proper solution. I really think that the proposal is an improvement on the previous one that we both supported. --Panic (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your change perverted the meaning of that sentence, so I removed it entirely.

You obviously haven't been watching well enough - that's a prolific cross-wiki vandal, has been using many accounts to attack wikis for months now. Anything less than an immediate infinite block would indicate to me that the admin needs to have their tools revoked.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 04:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought that your point with the phrase was to declare those with indefinite blocks as banned from the project...

I was referring to the block of User:Vampire Snuffleupagus is it the same IP range ?

If so it wasn't mentioned on the block comment and I didn't noticed QuiteUnusual asking for the CU of it. --Panic (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, they are banned. I don't need to "declare" them as such. That's what being banned is.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 05:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask for a CU because the behavior and style of writing made it clear (on the balance of probabilities) that this was a sock of another blocked user. If I had the CU bit I wouldn't have used it to check - it isn't necessary at this stage. If the newly blocked user requests an unblock on their talk page (which they can edit. and I made it clear they were welcome to ask for an unblock) and states they are not in fact a sock then someone can decide at that point if a CU check should be performed before unblocking. It would, in my opinion, be an unnecessary breach of privacy to ask for the CU check now. There is of course no such thing as an infinite block as any admin can remove the block. Using a shorter duration block on such a potentially "high risk" user (i.e., high risk that this is in fact a prolific vandal) just opens the project to disruption when the block is forgotten and expires without someone remembering to check if it should be renewed. This is for me what infinite blocks are for - blocked until something happens to trigger an active unblock decision rather than unblocked automatically without a positive decision to do so. As such users are "effectively banned" if no admin will unblock them - which brings this back to where it started. QU ^TalkQu 12:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for the input, I hope you understand that this isn't a criticism of your actions, you have been doing a great work on the project, it was only a remark in context to the above dicussion and mostly regarding the proposed text (not the standard practice). I assure you if I disagreed with something you did, I would talk to you first, I've done so in the past.

In any case because you commented I will take the chance to ask you if on that block, do you think the comment would conform to what is expected from the "Explanation of blocks" in the proposal ?

The remark is perfectly normal to someone not on the inside loop related to those blocks. Noted action because the user was welcomed by me, examined user contributions, saw you block comment and thought that it was a bit harsh.

But by the info on the action above, you say it was not directly based on that account actions but on the similitude with other already blocked user, would you see the same need not to use CU had the account made at least one positive edit ?

I also take this chance to note that the information necessary to contest a block had errors that made it unusable to the blocked user until "recently", don't know how it is working now... --Panic (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Look. The sentence, as it was originally written, is a tautology. It does not, in fact, imply any of the "powers" that Panic has assigned to it. Whether the sentence is there, in its original form, or removed in its entirety, has no effect on its meaning. If no administrator wants to unblock someone, he is banned from WB by definition, and whether that sentence is there in the policy, or not, does not affect the nature of the block or the fact of the ban. The only potential for interpretation is the phrase "by the community", which a sensible reader would take as meaning "by WB". My personal inclination would be to yank that sentence entirely as being pointless, and then leave it at that. Chazz (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

More or less my point. I wouldn't say it was a tautology. The meaning I thought Mike wanted to express, and to what I think you are referring is not clearly stated on the text but on the other hand I agree that it is implied (not evident but inferred). But it seems that was not the meaning Mike seems to have wanted to include...

Note that at present, after the edits, there is no mention of a ban on the proposed text. I agree with you that it is implied and unnecessary but would understand and compromise on having it clearly stated.

In any case, after all this, I don't fully understand why Mike thought it important to include the phrase, and the reason to have so an extensive thread about it. I do believe that the inclusion of the phase was see as necessary and important by Mike (one of the reasons I initiated the discussion), but since he stated my rewording perverted what he intended to convey, I can only fall back to my initial assertion that the points that I strongly disagreed with (and not opposed above), were indeed what was wanted to be included.

There is a clear distinction on the use of "by the community" or "by WB" (in a lesser degree) and "from WB" (and variations), this may be a moot point to the general Wikibookian but people that deal with the project policy making should understand and respect the distinction. If "by" was used we would be stating that the administration represents the community, this is false and dangerous statement. --Panic (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a tautology, that's the point. That's why when you changed it to mean something different, I said "screw it" and removed it entirely. The statement is true regardless whether it is included or not; I happen to think it clarifies matters and should therefore be included. However if your formulation has an unintended meaning then it confuses instead of clarifies. The exact wording I re-inserted is the best I've come across, and is used Wikimedia-wide because of that. I think following suit makes sense.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit of a different discussion. Tautology when applied to rhetoric doesn't encompass a meaning that is deduced but was not clearly stated before (this is distinct of tautology when applied to logic), in rhetoric, speaking or writing a language there is a requirement for the repetition of something that has already been stated, this was not the case.

When referring to tautology in logic it means that a formula is true in every possible interpretation, I don't think that Chazz was using the word in this context (since this isn't a logic problem and I granted that it could be inferred) but probably you are, as such I contested that this interpretation of the validity of the affirmation was flawed and provided the rational to defend my points. I also don't think Chass will support the interpretation I provided for the original wording, in any case I was defending the action you took of including the phrase, if you now have changed you opinion, that is excellent, I also hope you understood to what I was objecting in the first place.

Since some things should be made clear so this was not a complete waste of time, and because people may be interpreting things differently, I would like to restate the flowing points so we can close this issue in mutual understanding if someone disagrees with my opinion then clearly state so, and why. If not we should consider that we at came to an agreement on this two points and the discussion will remain closed.

a)In general terms can the administration represent the community ? (I'm opposed to this notion as "always true", even if I would agree that in specific instances if no opposition is raised that is the practical result. This is why we have policies and guidelines. Stating something that vague in a policy or guidelines should be objectionable, this must be clear to all, there are several issues that aren't consensual between the administrative group and the same is valid to the rest of the community, this is also why the processes of decision aren't restricted to administrators)

b)Should we promote inaction to resolve issues ? (I'm opposed to this notion, fallowing the decission process we must base most decission on the project, inaction equates to a block stance, nothing is resolved, it is a recognition of the volunteer status and something akin to of a escape clause provided to administrators to permit the suspension of the expectations the community places on them to use the tools to perform very specific tasks, this to me, is the only valid justification for example to the removal of the tools due to inactivity) --Panic (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't understand your objection at all, and I still don't. This is sadly not a rare situation.

As to a) No, that statement is not always true in all circumstances. But that doesn't mean the sentence should be left out.

As to b) I have no idea what you're talking about.

 — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if we have a problem communicating and I will bare all the blame for that, I try to address this fault of mine by keeping to a subject until some mutual understanding is reached, so I will always have the patience to address the situation...

Point b) addressed the "If no administrator is willing to..." remember that I rewrote it as "While...", the original wording would promote inaction.

Those were the points about the meaning of the phrase you restored that I objected to, since you discarded my rewording that was an attempt to resolve those issues I now don't have a clue what other meaning you wanted included, but if you are happy without it, then it is also is fine by me. --Panic (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to ignore the issue, since I do not understand what you're on about. No more orange bars tonight, please.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 04:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My deepest apologies for making just one last orange bar... I have to point out that in this context, a tautology would be the statement "a=a" or "if a, then a". In this case, "no administrator acts to remove a block" = "the individual is banned"; the two sides of the equivalence are effectively identical. The only points of contention that I can see, and those only if I have my nit-picking lenses on, are a) the implicit equivalence "WB" = "community" = "administrators", and b) the "promotion of inactivity as a means of response." The first point is what Panic seems to be pounding at in his reams of postings here. The second is a straw man that he has created himself, in order to knock it down; administrators are not being told anything about how they should act around blocks. But: as you point out, the tautology does not need to stay present in order for it to be true. Removing the sentence removes both the implied administrator = community questionable equivalence, and any implied call to inaction, which is why I suggested removing it. Chazz (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Global Sysop vote

What's with all the constant questioning of everybody who has added an 'oppose' vote for the Global Sysop proposal? Why are these people (including myself) being harassed? Let people have their say and move on. I don't see lots of questions being asked of those who've voted in support of the proposal?--ЗAНИA ^talk 21:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is they need to say why they oppose. I've been working on this series of proposals for probably a year, maybe more. It is insulting that people would not give due consideration. Asking for that is not harassment. The reason I haven't asked supporters for the same is because they are indicating agreement with the proposal - which outlines very precisely the rationale. Some have included additional reasoning, which is even better.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

meta:User talk:Seb az86556 (<what's up with the template?)

I have revised my comments to a better wording and added a "proposal to amend wording"-section at the bottom of the voting-page. Feel free to comment. Thank you. meta:User talk:Seb az86556 Actually, how about this. Peace. meta:User talk:Seb az86556

[edit] Global sysop amendment

hello Mike. Thank you for your constructive comments on the section I added to the global sysop-vote ("proposal to amend wording"). You bring up a good point about granting permanent sysop-ship as well. Please see my comment in that section for further discussion. I highly appreciate your cooperation. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Accusing

I went through ANI regarding this individual. If you want to look through my recent history you will see it, but since this is public I will not name names. I was asked to stop, I have stopped the proceedings. You can contact me at trackinfoorg at yahoo if you wish. Nothing was solved. My conclusion is: Administrators will just protect their own. We mere editors have little say. I raised the issue not because of my stub article, but because of the obvious history this guy has. That "habit" was not dealt with and in fact, was praised.

This great plan you are so heavily advocating will result in empowering more of these monsters to arbitrarily delete things--without using the procedures in place. One powerful person's opinion outweighs the ability of another to defend their work. That is not how consensus is achieved or how WP should work. Power corrupts.Trackinfo (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We currently have a group of fewer people with more power. The proposal aims to spread it out more, and you somehow think that's a problem?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] GSysop

Just a few clarification, nothing important or urgent (you can even point me to the right pages and I'll look them over), that is missing on that discussion or I couldn't find a mention of it.

1. If the proposal was adopted what projects would qualify for criteria?

   m:Global sysops/wiki set (with additions/removals depending upon who opts-in/-out) — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Why was it decided for a top down approach and not rely in each of the "needy" projects to call for outside help, this seems would be more representative and less bureaucratic.

   The whole point is that these projects don't really have that capacity. That's also why we're trying to provide a hopefully-sane default for inclusion, while still allowing adjustment per-wiki as needed. Furthermore, the people doing this work are largely m:SWMT members -- and that group is calling for global sysops. Vocally. The main proposers all come from that group.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

3. I'm not aware on the procedures and qualifications but is this a sign that Wikimedia is creating too many projects or making it too easy to put them up without thinking on the wasting of good faith by volunteers and resources that could be better invested elsewhere?

   No, I think the need for this reflects the maturation of the community. As we get older, we have fewer new contributors, which means fewer people countering vandalism. So, there's a need to have more people with privileged access sufficient to take up the slack.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally my intuited responses to those questions is what decided my vote. I think that due to the chaos that seems to be reigning on those pages clarifying this issues would help. I also have a particular dislike on how votes/pools outside of wikibooks are coordinated in general, I know here we (sadly) do not always do it formally but we at least can keep some order, its a freak show out-there... --Panic (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've replied inline for most.

I do agree, the vote has become a bit of a cesspool - I don't envy the steward to has to read everything and come to a conclusion as to what consensus exists, if any. The main issue truly is a lack of understanding. For example, people are questioning that there is even a problem with vandalism. While that is self-evident to myself, and many others who do work in that area (and so we see it day in day out), it is not so evident to many. I wish there was an easy way we could show people something to prove there is a problem that needs fixing, but that is not so easy to do - the best way is to have them join us and see for themselves as it happens. But that isn't likely to occur. Likewise, actually reading and understanding the proposal is a problem. People have been complaining that there is no restriction like "vandalism only" -- but that is exactly what "urgent abuse" refers to. We simply used that to include spam and malbots and ... so on. In fact, most complaints are actually dealt with in the proposal.

 — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It changed a bit my position on the subject and if the clarification is added (regarding the default opt-in, and how to get out of it) I'll remove my opposition. I still think the general approach is bad but also understand the issue with vandalism, so there is a need for balance and because you said the push for the proposal to pass is coming from projects that are affected, then it isn't my place to block it.

The reasons I'm still in disagree result from the creation of the function. The communities that should care for the each project will loses some control over them (or diverted form exerting it).

Fighting vandalism also shows what fragilities exist and by reducing the need for them to take responsibility then few will decide to take a more active role on those projects (that is why I agree with some of the opinions that if there isn't enough critical mass projects should fold). Taking up bureaucratic tasks (not particularly using the tools) isn't the major motivator for people to join the project in the first place but is as important or more than only contributing content, it is also more time sensitive and requires a greater commitment. This is why I'm also discontent with abolishing of the patrolling of pages here, it provided a reason for people to understand what is going on beyond their pet projects and move from a being a simpler user to a full member of the community. Most of our promotions for the other tools came from that group of people. --Panic (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you wanted to clarify that projects can opt-in/-out and that the project activity guidelines are just hopefully-sane defaults.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The first rewrite proposal (second vote on that page), has impact on how future discussion would proceed on each project. --Panic (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. That's very close to the standard we'd use anyways - it is just an attempt to write it down.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 14:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks:Requests for deletion#Slackersbible

Check the discussion and if you agree cast your vote (you were the proponent of that RfD). --Panic (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)