Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel (talk | contribs) at 01:02, 29 December 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPChristianity sidebar • {{ChristianityWikiProject}} • Category:Unassessed-Class Christianity articles
Christianity Recognized Content • AFD results by nominator

I am also user GRBerry on Commons, Wikispecies, Meta, and (although I speak no German) de.Misplaced Pages. Messages intended for me on any of those projects may be left here, in which case I ask the poster to indicate which project they are talking about. GRBerry diffmeta diff I've also signed up for single user login.

Email advice: When able to be active on Misplaced Pages, I am more likely to read this talk page than I am to read email, as the email goes to my work email. So please reserve email for items requiring 1) confidentiality, 2) the format (forwarding other emails), or 3) some other really good reason for using email. Also, to help it get through my spam filters and to my attention, have the email subject line begin with "Misplaced Pages". If at all possible, I will respond on Misplaced Pages, because I believe that transparency is important, and each user I email lessens my privacy. GRBerry

New sections belong at the bottom, not here.

Sarah Palin

The reason I do the small edits is because there have been a number of times when I've been furiously working on an article for hours; and, when I'm done I'll try to save the work only to find out that my login status has unbelievably disappeared, along with my hours of work. And I don't know what to do about that. I don't know how to correct it and keep my login status while I work on a page. So, I'll keep doing the small edits. As far as writing edit summaries, I don't remember to do that a lot. And, actually, I don't really care that I forget about it. Canihaveacookie(talk) 10:09 (UTC-5) September 8, 2008

Using the "Preview" does not work for me. I've tried it. I still lose my login status. Maybe some joker with access behind the scenes of Misplaced Pages is disconnecting me from my login status. Well, at this point I don't care who's doing what. Canihaveacookie(Talk) 11:37 (UTC-5), September 8, 2008

User:Canterberry & User:EliasAlucard

I appreciate you've gone inactive (although I hope you reconsider), but as the original blocker of User:Canterberry you probably ought to be aware of this discussion. (I personally think it's time he was given a second chance – yes, he's been socking but the sock was making valid and uncontentious edits – but can sympathize with the other view.) – iridescent 22:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied at AN. Also, I got an email from another blocked user with a protected talk page referencing this discussion. Can some admin drop a note at User talk:EliasAlucard that references User talk:GRBerry/Archive 10#SELF NOTE. Of course, if someone wants to review the whole history and do something else instead, that would be fine. GRBerry 15:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done – iridescent 16:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry, is EliasAlucard asking to return? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, via email on Saturday that I just read in the hour before my note above. Part of the message was "I'd like to be unblocked". I'm sure that I was asked because of my statement at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive377#Should EliasAlucard indef block be taken to WP:RFAR. The results of my review half a year ago may not have come to his attention, because they were only posted on my talk page prior to today. Obviously, the fact that I resigned as an admin last month didn't come to his attention. GRBerry 04:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

For the avoidance, this was the first email or other direct request I've had from him on the subject. Since I was the admin who had explicitly said I'd be doing a review, it seems logical that I'd have been one of the first if not the first he would contact. GRBerry 05:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Was it your thought to mentor him? Or did he indicate that he'd change his behavior? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm now attempting to be inactive, so I certainly won't be mentoring. There was nothing in the email to indicate an intent to change behavior. But as I recall the problem never was the content edits, it was a proper subset of the talk page edits. Which is why my thought back in March-April was that it might be best if he returned under a new account and avoided making those troublesome edits. We'd get the good content edits and avoid the drama that destroyed all semblance of reasoned decision making in the ANI threads back then. GRBerry 14:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That block was widely endorsed by admins and others, and it's still in place. If he is not promising to change his behavior he shouldn't return. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A significant fraction of that wide endorsement was by a group of editors who have strong partisan interests in a related nationalistic dispute. Also widely opposed by a large group of editors. Canvassing appears to have been a problem in both directions, so the amount of support and opposition is totally irrelevant, the arguments are relevant. I do remember that conversation, and the discussion of the block was noise, not signal, so I never have given significant weight to what was said in the original ANI thread.

As you replied to Guy back then "I respect your opinion and would support any strong editor who is willing to take a menoring position with his editor." My conclusion was that any return under that account would lead to far too much drama, largely instigated by those who supported the original block, just as the original block was instigated by an editor that has gone on to receive many blocks themself and that he should just return under a different account and avoid the behavior that caused the block. GRBerry 19:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would support the possibility of his return if there was a strong editor actively mentoring him. But until the community agrees to it he's still blocked, and if he evades that block with a new account he'll be blocked again with even less chance of returning. Let's not encourage him to violate Misplaced Pages policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to keep an eye on Elias' contributions. I'm blessed with not having much interest in the political side of this debacle. He has indicated to me off-wiki that he is willing to steer clear from controversial topics for a while. The JPS 11:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

By keep an eye on, do you mean watch carefully for at least six months, provide strong feeedback, and a willingness to reblock if he repeats his formerly problematic behaviors? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't commit to that as I can't devote as much time to this project as in the past. I've known Elias for a while from some non-controversial articles. The JPS 00:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being honest. If a strong editor who is active on the project is willing to mentor and take responsibility for Alucard, I'd still support his return. But without that I don't think it's advisable to unblock the user or have him create a new account to circumvent the block. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• This thread started with a request for my input, as the originally blocking admin, into a discussion about whether or not to unblock somebody. That discussion has archived (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive176#Unblock?) with no further input after mine. I think it should be resolved one way or the other or dragged back out for more input. GRBerry 18:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

AGF and all that, but on this thread there's what looks very suspiciously like a Canterberry sock – an account created shortly after Olana North was blocked, carrying on the same arguments. I may be horribly unfair, and there's certainly not enough to warrant an RFCU, but I hear quacking. – iridescent 18:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Oh well, lets leave that thread dead and buried then. Looking through those contributions I've got a feeling that this editor will eventually derail themself without anyone needing to refer to history. GRBerry 19:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on RfAr

Great comment, you're really on the ball there, and not just because I appreciate being noticed. Seriously, you added something to the discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I hope you are right, though lacked certainty as I posted it and even now. I don't have a solution for the problem I proposed. Seeing Moreschi, of all admins, do this should have been a wake up call for people. Unfortunately, the problem is also the reason that few people would have realized that his action was a sign of the problem. GRBerry 21:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto the above, eh? I can see why there's no obvious solution: what kind of suicidal madman would volunteer to take up the role of arbitration enforcer now? If a call gets put out for volunteers, they usually show up; an Eeyore-esque "Will somebody help with Arbitration Enforcement" at AN would probably generate some volunteers under regular circumstances. Irregular? Eek. WilyD 22:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

An arbitration enforcer is a thankless incredibly difficult job to begin with - which may sound like me kvetching and feeling sorry for myself (which I am) but I also have another point. Its a hard job to do right, and you do it wrong, and you get blasted for it, you do it right, you get blasted for it - sometimes even worse. That kind of pressure selects very stubborn admins - which leads to its own problems. You need to have the magical triumvirate of stubbornness, adaptability, and measured responsiveness to criticism. What admin has that all the time, let alone at all? Most people (rightfully) wimp out of the difficult problems, and the ones left often become problems in their own right.--Tznkai (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFAR#user:ScienceApologist

An editor that you have been involved with in the past has been taken to WP:RFAR#user:ScienceApologist. You are welcome to express your comments at the specific RFAR case. Thank you, seicer | talk | contribs 21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, lovely. Totally lovely. Why are we getting coal in our stocking for Christmas? GRBerry 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It'll be delayed till 2009 :) seicer | talk | contribs 02:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)