User talk:Skomorokh/א

DYK nomination of The Jubalaires

Hello! Your submission of The Jubalaires at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Of socks and thanks

Thanks for dealing with the vandalism - its the latest sock of Irvine22, the stauner in the name is the give away, and the particular obsession with that article. Love the welcome message by the way --Snowded ^TALK 06:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Boy, but you are keen to get on top of these stauners! Holden A. Stauner (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Skomorokh's_sock

Just wanted to see if that's you - if not I'll block them as an impostor. Cheers! TNXMan 16:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That is not too imaginative of User:Special Cases. Thanks for the concern! Skomorokh 16:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Account

Can You clarify whether this account is your sock Skomorokh's sock (talk · contribs)I was thinking of reporting it Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Obvious impersonator and likely sock of Special Cases (talk · contribs). Now sleeps with the fish. Favonian (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your concern PotW, and cheers Favonian for the swift and merciless justice. Skomorokh 16:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Jubalaires

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks

for that redirect as Harej chose to put them somewhere a bit different which would have broken User:Lar/ACE2010's link to them. ++Lar: t/c 07:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

no problem, glad it helped out. Skomorokh 11:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It still may need looking at, as when the candidate comment pages are all redirected, his has questions (making it a very large proportion of the total page) and no one else does. I'm not sure what if anything you want to do about that. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Perhaps if you and I both would encourage the candidates to answer your questions as Fozzie and Brad have done, on the /Questions talkpage, that would be best. Skomorokh 14:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. PhilKnight's is now done that way (same as Brad and Fozzie) as well. CMLITC has now said I should add them in the corresponding same place, but there's a redirect there for his questions page as well. I'm tempted to delete the redirect and add them, creating that page, since it's what he said, but I am loth at this juncture without checking with you first. So...  ??? :) But if we do that, it's 4 of 5 in that pattern and we just have to explain it to Harej, I expect he will go along.... ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved Harej's. I need to do some monkeying around with the templates, but will then standardise the pages according to this system and update the instructions. Thanks for your help on this. Skomorokh 14:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've undone the redirect of CMLITC's, and put my questions there, referring folk here to see why. If that's not in line with your thinking it goes without saying that you should of course reorg as you see fit, but hopefully that sorts it all? Thanks again. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, sure, that's fine, need all the help I can get :) Skomorokh 15:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw you put a header on Harej's so I propagated it to the other pages too, seemed the thing to do. I don't have time to formally commit to being a volunteer, but I will do what I can. My talk page is always open (and has a lot of watchers). ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

PS the header template suggests level 3 headers, not sure if that's actually needed on these pages but if so a fair few of headers need fixing. LMK (I was tempted to add a flag to suppress that suggestion in the template rendering if the flag was set, but that may be template overkill :) ) ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I actually need that flag to tell the template whether to display the hatnote or not, so if you know how to answer this and do your thing about the headers, please do. Something like |subpage=yes as a trigger is what I had in mind. Skomorokh 16:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This would be a different flag I think. Sorry I didn't see this earlier, was at work/lunch. Reading that thread it seems you found the answer? And I see you bundled it into the same flag. So... nice work! ++Lar: t/c 21:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Got it in the end, yeah. Thanks again for your help with all this. Skomorokh 12:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Tracking Progress for your requested bot

Hello Skomorokh, This is just a notice that you can watch the status of your requested bot, RSElectionBot, on User:DeltaQuad/Workshop/TODO. I will be using templates like  Done,  Not done,  Working and other templates to indicate my progress and relevant links will be posted there. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks again DQ. Skomorokh 12:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Online Ambassador selection process

Please share you views on the current version of the proposed Online Ambassador selection process, which the steering committee has recommended for adoption by the ambassadors program. Once we settle on a selection process, we can start recruiting more Online Ambassadors for next term (in which we will have more students, and the students will be more involved with mentors from early on).--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In chatroom

For a little while b4 I go to bed. Sven is there too. Tony (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Template policy

I am extremely concerned that you removed my guide from the template. Why did you single me out in this way? If we're going to remove any guides from the template, it should be those guides which are currently just placeholders, and don't actually have any information about any of the candidates. I am also very concerned that you removed my link because of somebody complaining about my use of the {{usercheck}} template. I didn't see those links as errors, I saw them as useful information. If someone else is going to click on a blocklog link and get confused, they're going to get confused, but I don't see that as a reason to remove a guide from a template. Your removal also has a very chilling effect on my ability to write opinions. What if I write something like, "I am opposing this candidate, because I don't trust their judgment." If a complaint goes up on the talkpage like, "Elonka is mistaken, that candidate obviously has good judgment," would you then remove my link because my opinion was "wrong"? I hope not! Instead, let's please stick to the consensus decision, that "guides written in good faith" are welcome for inclusion. It's a very dangerous, very slippery slope, if we start removing guides just because somebody says something that others disagree with. --Elonka 16:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know all the particulars but I tend to agree that all guides written in good faith should be included, and would look askance at removal, absent some strong compelling reason. That said, was the matter something to do with information presentation? Is there no way to make revisions in how it was presented that would satisfy the concern? Some compromise might well be ideal. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman was complaining at my guide's talkpage about my use of the {{usercheck}} template for some of the candidates' previous accounts, with the rationale that since some of those names were later hijacked by pranksters and blocked, that the "block log" link on the template could mislead readers (see link to my page at the time[1]). Personally, I think that's a very minor point that could have been easily remedied, and was not worth removing my guide from the template. For now, I have modified my use of the usercheck templates, but I am still extremely concerned that Skomorokh felt that Jehochman's complaint was enough of a reason to remove my link, plus that Skomorokh did the removal without so much as a note to my talkpage beforehand. --Elonka 18:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeh has a point, but so do you, and it looks to me like you guys worked out a good solution (hand crafted links to the relevant RfAs, RfBs, etc. that do not mislead about the ID's contributions) This looks sorted to me now and I am going to go ahead and place the guide back in, Sk can revert me if he disagrees and we'll take it from there. ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Er, I see it's back now. Well I support that re-addition now that the matter is sorted. ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Category added

I added Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2010 voter guides to all the guides, please revert me if that wasn't right. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I'm in the room. Tony (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

ACE2010 process

You mentioned that you didn't want to "delist candidates over phraseology". Why would you delist any candidate? Last time I checked the eligibility requirements were quite succinct, and I don't see that any candidacy is yours to delist.
I am asking this purely as a matter of principle, independent of any particular answered or (yet) unanswered question.
Amalthea 16:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure your message is entirely consistent – if the eligibility requirements are quite succinct, then why would it be a matter of controversy to delist ineligible candidacies? I have done so already and am prepared to do so again. Skomorokh 16:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, feel of course free to delist candidates that are banned, blocked, or had "less than 1,000 mainspace edits prior to the start of the nomination period". What I meant to say is that "rul[ing] out the possibility that [one has] used accounts that are disclosed neither publicly nor to ArbCom" is no criterion I find in WP:ACE2010. On what grounds would you delist a candidate if their statement doesn't unambiguously rule that out? Amalthea 19:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The criteria for the nomination statements are here; among them is the requirement that they must "include a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts or confirmation that all such accounts have been declared to the Arbitration Committee". In the case of several candidates, though no malice or ill will of their own, the statements did not meet this criterion; the sole purpose of my doing the rounds on their talkpages earlier was to make sure everything was kosher and thus prevent lawyering and drama later. Skomorokh 19:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, didn't expect to find such a requirement for the candidate statements, that referendum completely went by me, so I withdraw my question and thank you instead for your diligence. :)
Amalthea 21:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom elections questions

My question page is being repeatedly questioned by a user that has been repeatedly in dispute with me and who was blocked for repeatedly posting on my talkpage, User Treasury Tag. I have answered his question as I will and yet he is reposting, please advice or link me to the relevant advice, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I have never been blocked for repeatedly posting on this person's talkpage. Not that I see how that can possibly be a relevant factor anyway. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 20:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Adjudication requested

As an election co-ordinator, please could you look over these diffs and adjudicate on whether or not an Arb candidate who refuses to answer a question is entitled to delete it from their page? Thanks. General explanation [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 20:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up chaps. Can you hold off on further interaction until I have had a look at it? Appreciate it, Skomorokh 20:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My answer is solely as an election flunky, and takes into account none of your prior interactions or general behavioural guidelines: Treasury Tag, the guidelines are clear as day in that voters may ask only one question per candidate on their Questions page, where they are encouraged to respond. If you think Off2riorob's answer was lacking, wish to comment on the question, or want to ask him follow-up questions, the talkpage is the place to take it up, though Off2riorob is under no obligation or expectation to respond. This answer doesn't give any immunity against blocking of either of you on usual behavioural grounds. Hope this is clear, Skomorokh 20:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Addendum: editors are encouraged to pass complaints about non-observance of the instructions to election co-ordinators, but that is not an absolute requirement, merely a guideline to try to avoid the edit-warring we've seen in this case. Skomorokh 20:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it permissible for me to strike my initial question and add a new one? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 20:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No guideline on that but I would advise that if we were to allow that as a general principle, the whole thing would be open to gaming. Skomorokh 20:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let me ask a third question of you, then, if I may... :) Is it appropriate for candidates to delete questions from their own pages, especially given the statement that the Election Co-ordinators will do this? In other words, should I strike my first question and put a new one, would the enforcement of this unclear guideline be left up to the candidate or up to someone impartial such as yourself?
Sorry for all this bother! ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 20:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than asking hypotheticals, why don't you point us to the issue, and tell us what result you'd like to achieve. Maybe we can help you get there. Jehochman ^Talk 20:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, the guidelines for proper behaviour are intentionally left flexible, as coordinators have no real mandate to lay down their own law. If you were to strike your first question and put another, I would request that you be blocked for disruption. If Off2riorob were to revert you, I would request the same for him. As far as I am concerned, neither of you have cause for any further interaction on that page. Regards, Skomorokh 20:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Arb elections

Hey, just letting you know I've withdrawn. We seem to have a decent selection of candidates now and I'd much rather be keeping the wheels turning as an admin than doing "arb stuff"! I've untranscluded my statemnt, is there anything else I should do? Hopefully I haven't messed anything up! ;) All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There are no formal procedures to go through; I've frozen your question page and might do similarly to your candidate talkpages. Thanks for thinking of the project in both your nomination and withdrawal, it is reassuring to know that there are editors who aren't prepared to see the whole enterprise go to hell due to apathy. Regards, Skomorokh 02:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I almost was, if I'm honest, but thought better of it. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the apathy is not where you seem to think it is Skomorokh. Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah? Skomorokh 02:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it should be "because of apathy", not "due to apathy". How can we possibly hope to write a dictionary if we can't write? Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Riveting. Skomorokh 03:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Much like the current elections then. G'night. Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, the project needs people like you to be positive and reform-minded if it's to continue on the path to professionalisation. Carbon-copy to Sandy on that, too. Tony (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If I ever begin to see any signs of reform then I may perhaps also begin to share at least some of your optimism. So far all I've seen is every effort at reform being resisted by those who believe it will have a corrosive effect on the power they've accreted to themselves. I do not believe that "the community" has the ability to reform itself; if changes are to be made then they must be imposed from outside. I see the schism between administrators and non-administrators relentlessly widening and deepening, but no serious effort being made to address the inequality between the effectively disenfranchised and the holders of an office for life. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I probally just dumped a load of work on you...

Sorry, the bot went down just after 2030UTC last night. I just fixed the bot and it's back up and running, but it added a whole bunch of names to the list. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; if it slowed to twice a day we would still get by just fine I reckon. Skomorokh 15:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Your note inspired me to do this. Thank you for that influence. Best. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 17:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good; depriving any potential haranguers of oxygen is a sound policy. Sorry again for the conflicting advice in the instance of the elections, I was a little overzealous in seeking to have everything above board. Skomorokh 17:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarify

Do We mark every account below 2000 edits that will be a lot of accounts including rollbackers and reviewers ? I found a account with just 177 edits and the account was created in 2008.Do you suggest we check recent activity or merely mark ?But did not as the user had not opted in.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No, my initial annotation was more in the nature of a test. You should rely on your intuition to test if something about a voter seems off. Skomorokh 21:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion please

You closed the {{afd}} on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suspect_guest_house,_Jalalabad. The deletion left a half dozen or dozen dangling redlinks. I created a redirect to Al-Qaeda safe house. I thought then that this was a reasonable thing to do.

Recently one of the contributors in that {{afd}} created an {{rfd}} for the redirect. In that {{afd}} they characterized my creation of the redirect as an "impropriety". I think terms like this should be avoided, as they imply bad faith.

As the closing administrator I would appreciate your input as to whether dealing with the half-dozen or dozen redlinks through a redirection to the most closely related article was a good idea.

If you think the creation was a mistake, I hope you will assume it was a good faith mistake.

Thanks for your time. Geo Swan (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. So what happened to the dozen or so incoming wikilinks? It is a long story. I'll describe that elsewhere. I'll leave you a link -- if you like. Geo Swan (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the appropriateness of specific redirects, let me say that it wasn't my intention as closing admin to forbid the former articles from being redirected where appropriate, and I would be very surprised if the outcome of an AfD was cited as a reason to delete a redirect. If you'd like something more specific, do let me know. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 21:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The other contributor did cite the {{afd}} as one of their two justifications in an {{rfd}}. I hope you don't mind if I employ a diff to your comment in the {{rfd}}, in response to the disturbing impropriety claim.

Thanks for the quick reply. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Of skies above

Aloha Skomorokh,

Could you shed light on this Candidates pg diff/summary [12]? It piqued my curiosity. Natch, if it's involving a private communication or anything like that, then just to the extent you can do so without betraying any confidences. Mahalo, Whitehorse1. 15:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No not at all; it was just a reference to going digging at the WMF wiki for some kind of guidance on the issue. Skomorokh 15:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, own initiative acting with best endeavours and all that; that's cool. Was it pretty much that WMF wiki page that jumped out as the pertinent one, or was there another I should read in conjunction with it for context, for background, too? –Whitehorse1 15:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're wondering if the possibility of the current constitutional crisis occurred to me at the time, then yes; that was my motivation for removing the inappropriate ArbCom-derived justifications in the left-hand side of the above diff (i.e. the wording taken from previous years). It was one of 20 issues that could have blown up in the current climate with editors demanding strict community-derived rules and procedures which previously went by practice and precedent; the thing is, there's very little appetite to do anything about these sorts of things until the inevitable drama explosion. As for context and background on this issue, there is no global policy that I am aware of for ArbCom or ArbCom elections; the respective pages on meta are (rather lacking) descriptive accounts rather than binding stipulations. Aside from the links in the diff above, I had a look over the various controversies surrounding identification (Essjay, Sam Blacketer etc.), the talkpages of the previous elections and the ArbCom archives; those might be useful for you to look over in trying to get a bigger picture, but I rather found that that bigger picture ultimately resembled the blind men and an elephant, with no clear guidance on what to do in the here and now. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 16:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Mm hm. Just to check my understanding is okay, does this summarization basically fit what you said there? …you sought to give clarity, in the swap of the comm. mailing list-derived statement of view on underage arbs and past election talkpage thread with the document cited; to your understanding no global policy for ArbCom or ArbCom elections exists, a look among related pages on meta finds they aren't composed of stipulations but instead're scant descriptive accounts; nothing is certain but death and taxes. –Whitehorse1 16:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, not quite; the aim was not at all to give clarity but to find legitimacy for the identification requirement inherited from previous years. When I found that it was derived from an ArbCom statement I decided to reference the meta policy instead. Either would have glossed over the arb != non-private data and eligible candidate != appointable arb nuances but without having any legitimate authority from the community other than boldness, squaring those circles wasn't something I was empowered to do. The rest of your understanding is about right. Cheers, Skomorokh 16:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to check my understanding: …you sought to, locate legitimacy for the two assertions (the >18 and arb-elects Foundation-identify ones); on finding these derived-from/cited-to an ArbCom statement/thread, the justificatory wikilinks as inappropriate or otherwise wanting, decided to cite the meta policydoc (i.e. access to nonpub. data one) instead. …doing the candidates page, which includes detail on ArbCom candidate eligibility, used the one from last year--as a starting point. …aand neither cites (the previous ones or meta doc) focus on the factors/nuances you mention more than the other but, all other things being equal the meta one is more suitable. Oui? Cheers, Whitehorse1. 19:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A nod rather than a citation; intended to be a pointer to voters wanting an elaboration of the age-identification-access issue rather than a justification. Your last fragment is a little off, it was more a case of "ArbCom statement = immaterial, WMF policy = relevant". Hope this is a little clearer now, Skomorokh 01:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. I see what you're saying. Whitehorse1 23:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you get my email? Tony (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, should be executing secret cabal plan #447 in 2-3 hours. Skomorokh 15:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

#690 is what concerns me, and not climbing much. Tony (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wesley Ngo Baheng creation protection

Hi, you deleted Wesley Ngo Baheng in August last year after an AfD. He now passes WP:ATHLETE after playing for Aldershot in an FA Cup match (see this). You were not the last person to delete the page, but User:Esteffect has not edited since October. Since this is an uncontroversial undeletion, can you remove the protection please? Thanks. —Half Price 16:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

HalfPrice, I would be happy to, but I am not an administrator. If you hop over to WP:REFUND and tell them you have my blessing to recreate I'm sure they will oblige. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 16:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Aha, thanks. —Half Price 17:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)