User talk:Ezhiki

Reference:

Archived talk: 2004 2005 2006

My Request for Adminship

Greetings, Ezhiki! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. Your support means a lot to me! If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Hey man, thanks a lot for voting, I see you beat me to the response ;) If you need anything, just give me a shout. :) - FrancisTyers 01:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Cheney

I would say "how do you know he's not a Wikipedian", but I think I'll just tip my hat to you. I figured it would be a while before anyone noticed my edit on Wikipedia:Wikipedians somewhere unspecified in the United States of America, let alone reverted it. If I had the power, I would award you a Barnstar. --Mareino 20:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was pretty funny, and could even be OK on April 1. Still, even if he were a Wikipedian, the link should have been to his user page, not to the article namespace :)

Speaking of barnstars, anyone around here can award whatever s/he wants to anyone else, if a good enough reason arises. Not that I am soliciting an award from you (a watchlist patrol is a duty expected of an admin—it's definitely not something barnstar-worthy), but I think you'd like to know that for future occasions if you see someone going above and beyond one's duties.

All in all, take care, and please do not attempt such jokes in future—I know a few people who would be giving you a lecture about "inappropriate behavior" right about now :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with your light warning. It's been a long day at work, and for one weak moment, I found myself sympathizing with the Wiki vandals. Won't happen again ... within the next 3 months or so. --Mareino 21:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_Language

happy new year! Template:Infobox_Language seems to be blocked from moving. At least I don't have the move button anymore. I could not find who did it and why this was done / which policy was used to justify this move block. It seems to be there since User:Cyrius moved it the 2nd time. So he has the admin power to preserve the status he thinks is right. With your admin power can you check what happened? Did he block? Where can I call for unblock? Maybe you can do it - but well I don't want to ask you too much here. thx - so long Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you too, Tobias. Hope all is going well for you.

The template was protected from being moved by Cyrius on January 6; the following reason was given: user keeps moving this elsewhere and replacing with a disambiguation page for no apparent reason. You, by the way, can check things like that yourself at Special:Log—you can look up all or some of the logs by username or article name (note that capitalization there is important). A quick glance at the edit history shows that he protected it most likely because it was moved back and forth, with discussion going on chiefly in the edit summaries. I will have too look further into this to dig the details; I am hesitant unprotect it right away as I do not yet have sufficient information about what's happened, even though the "for no apparent reason" part does not feel exactly right. I would, however, recommend, to list the template at WP:RM first, after which protection can be lifted (provided that neither you nor Netoholic are going to move it again until the process is complete).

I'll keep researching the matter. Apart from your and Netoholic's talk pages, is there a discussion thread I could look at anywhere else? Take care,—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Language - on 2005-12-12 it was suggested to move to Template:Infobox language a more standard name for infoboxes. I suggested to use uppercase "L". The move was blocked by User:Netoholic who on 2005-12-22 created a template there without telling anyone not in the template talk nor Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages. He even started applying the template to articles without notice. I moved the Netoholic template to give space for the move of the original language template. Cyrius reverted with a spamming complain (the Netoholic template was used in 15 or so articles at this time). I was already cleaning up this, then I reverted Cyrius. He (ab)used his admin power to block further moves. I would even like to start an RfC about Cyrius behavior, because I am annoyed by admins that use their power in conflicts to get their opinion go through. I allready noted WP:RM with move proposal of the original infobox to Infobox_Language. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tobias. I'll look into this later (see my comment to Kim below as to why not now).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cont'd at "Infobox:Language issues" section below

Sloppy statement and answers to questions

Argh, yes. I answered on the basis that people would come and discuss with me, (as advertised, apparently), but people seem to instead treat statements as written in stone, and are just voting.

In fact, you're quite encouraged to ask for clarifications or take the time to discuss issues you agree or disagree on with the candidate. Just not on the voting pages themselvesv I guess.

In any case, voting will be ongoing for a while yet, so feel free to ask any questions where you think I've been unclear.

Hmm, and if you have a minute, maybe point out where and how I could flesh out my statement a bit? <puppydog look>

Kim Bruning 17:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kim! Sorry if my comment sounded a bit harsh, but it was intended to :) I'd love to ask each candidate questions that bother me, but, with 50+ candidates, it took me four straight hours just to read through all the statements/answers to the questions, trying to figure out whom to support and whom not to. As you can imagine, in such circumstances candidate statements are really important, and yours just looked as if you didn't really care. Since I know you can do much better than that, I left a comment that probably was not too pleasant-sounding. As far as my recommendation to fleshing your statement, I would recommend to scrap it altogether and write it a-new (yes, I think it's that bad, sorry).

I'll think over the questions I have for you and ask them later, when my eyes stop hurting from the four-hour session of intense staring into the screen :) Meanwhile, take care and best of luck to you with your ArbComm run!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! I've rewritten my candidate statement. Hopefully it's to your liking. Thanks for your advice! Kim Bruning 08:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kim. This new statement is a lot better and answers all the questions I had.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

You stated on my ArbCom vote page that my "recent behavior leaves [you] with little choice" but to oppose. Could you please explain to me what aspect of my recent behavior has forced your hand in this manner? Kelly Martin (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, my comment, just as the comments of most other opposing people, referred to the recent userbox controversy. I hate to join the lynch mob in this, especially because I myself believe that many userboxes are crap that does not benefit encyclopedia-building (or community-building) efforts in anyway, but the way you handled the matter did not strike me as appropriate for an ArbComm member. Whatever your reasons were, I hope you will not resort to unilateral actions in the future and wish you best of luck with your run. I do otherwise find you as an exceptionally good candidate.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'd like to you be more specific. In what way wwere my actions not "appropriate from an ArbComm member"? What do you think would be appropriate for an ArbCom member? Kelly Martin (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that ArbCom members have no opportunity for unilateral action (nothing happens at the ArbCom without at least four people agreeing), so I don't understand why your concern about any tendency I might have toward unilateral action would influence your judgment of my competency to serve as an Arbitrator. (In actuality, not being on ArbCom will greatly expand my opportunities for unilateral action, as I will be less constrained by not having the responsibilities of that position.) Could you, perhaps, explain your reasoning here in more detail? Kelly Martin (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to keep my reasoning brief since I figured that by now you are probably sick and tired of hearing the same things over and over again, and whatever I have to say would probably be a repetition of what others already said. According to your comments above, that's not the case, so allow me to elaborate.

The thing that troubled me the most was your decision to delete something as widely used as userboxes without offering a discussion of any sort, based on your decision alone. From what I understood, you did not suggest to delete them, you simply did. Users did not even get as much as a warning that the userboxes were going to be gone. One would expect that an ArbComm member has better judgement than to stir a nest like this. And judgement, as it logically seems, is one thing an arbitrator needs the most. I do not know what prompted you to act unilaterally in the userboxes case, but, regretfully, they are likely to haunt you for a long time to come, and I do see the whole thing as a pretty poor display of judgement. You are right that one arbitrator cannot decide a case outcome, but s/he is certainly in position to influence it.

I hope this was detailed enough. If you still have any questions regarding my vote, or if you think I see something in the wrong light, please do not hesitate to let me know.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I have had no opportunity to actually discuss the situation with anyone other than a few friends. Discussion on an RfC is expressly prohibited (although people violate this rule all the time); by adhering to this rule I have apparently offended a number of people who think I should have instead "discussed" the matter on the RfC. Second, I expected some upset feelings, but not the uproar that resulted. I believe that policy supported my actions in the same way policy supported my actions when I started deleting orphaned unlicensed images back in September. That bold move on my part got some complaints, but not many, and led in some small part to my original appointment to the ArbCom. I believed that bold action was required in this situation and that policy was clear. In particular the decision to delete inappropriate userboxes was spurred in large part by recidivists in the userbox community who insist that they have the right to disregard Wikipedia policy (and, incidentially, the law) regarding the use of unlicensed images, a battle I have been fighting for months with some people. (Ironically, some of these people were the ones leading the mob against me on the RfC.) Having a discussion on whether to enforce existing policy seems ridiculous to me. What happened here, as opposed to what happened in September, is that enough people went "OMIGOD MY USERBOX IS GONE" and wanted blood so badly that they were unwilling to listen to reason to form a mob. I failed to anticipate the mob, as I did not realize the extent to which the userbox addiction had spread through the community. (They are not particularily popular with the editors I spend most of my time around.)

I have refrained from posting an "open apology" in large part because I have no desire to appear to be conceding on the underlying issue regarding userboxes, especially those which are used to attack either other editors or to attack specific points of view, and of course those which infringe copyrights, and there were so many people in that feeding frenzy on my RfC that were rabidly defending their rights to say whatever they want however they want that I was that I feared a capitulation would be taken as justification for their clearly inappropriate point of view. Enough time has passed that an apology for not involving more of the community in a discussion beforehand would not be out of line; enough community support for a more moderate position exists to keep the radicals on this point under control. I still believe that the userboxes I deleted should have been deleted and should again be deleted, but I am not going to press the issue at this point as there is a robust and relatively civil debate on the topic now that will, hopefully sometime in our lives, lead to a conclusion. I had also misjudged the degree to which the community has become committed to process, probably because I don't have much to do with deletion anymore (an area where process has become arguably too important). For those two misjudgments, I am willing to apologize.

In any case, I don't think this really pertains at all to my capabilities as an Arbitrator, especially when I have a history as an Arbitrator to look at. I would encourage you to look at my history as an Arbitrator and judge my competency on that basis, instead of relying on what is really an unrelated incident to form your opinion of the merits of my candidacy. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kelly, for this quite detailed explanation. It made me realize that I, being affected by the mob mentality, never actually sought to hear your side of the story before voting, taking everything said by the others at face value. Obviously, it's very easy to see how the things "should have been done" in the hindsight.

While your explanations still did not me feel entirely comfortable with casting a support vote, I found them convincing enough to withdraw my opposition. Thank you for providing a reason and taking time to provide your view on the matter.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox:Language issues

Tobias Conradi informally asked me to mediate the issues surrounding the (Infobox) (L/l)anguage template. Since I was not involved into the matter, it took me a little while to figure out what was going on. Below please find a summary of the case as I understand it. If something is incorrect or amiss (or afoot :)), please do not make changes but leave a comment below. Thank you.

Per Netoholic, current template Template:Language is in violation of WP:AUM.
- Netoholic started developing a new template, located at Template:Infobox Language, that would be in compliance with WP:AUM.
  - According to the comments at Template talk:Language, most of the parties involved dislike the new template.
  - According to other comments on the same page, new template does not work properly on Wikipedia mirrors.
    - Netoholic defends it as a work in progress that needs to be done anyway to make the template compliant with WP:AUM.
Per Tobias Conradi, current template (Template:Language) should be moved to Template:Infobox Language, so as to achieve consistency with the naming scheme for other infobox templates.
- As Netoholic's version is in the way, the move cannot be performed at this time.
- Netoholic is not willing to move the newly developed template to his userspace or under a different name. He is convinced that his template will eventually be accepted, thus saving the necessity to make corrections to numerous articles that call it.
  - Tobias disagrees.
  - Cyrius apparently agrees with Netoholic's arguments, as he protected the Netoholic's version from being moved.
    - Tobias believes that Cyrius' actions constitute an abuse of his admin priviliges.

At this point of time, I abstained from judging/accusing anybody or taking any actions, as I may still not see the complete picture. Comments would be much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with Netoholic's arguments, or rather, I take no stand on the issue. I took the action I did because Tobias moved Netoholic's version elsewhere, and overwrote the (at the time) actively-used template with a disambiguation page. My actions were solely to prevent what I saw as a disruption of Wikipedia. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cyrius, I see what you mean. Tobias agreed to file a WP:RM for the template, so I trust he will no longer attempt to move the template himself until that goes (or does not go) through; and definitely not until we discuss the whole situation (here or elsewhere). Do you mind unprotecting it for now? I can, of course, do it myself, but I think it'll only be fair to let you do it. Again, thanks.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Cyrius is imprecise. At time of his second move and the following move block it was not used anywhere. So it wasn't a disruption. I went to WP:RM for the move of Template:Language to Template:Infobox Language, I did not so for the move of "Template:Infobox Language" to "Template:Infobox Language new". So the above assumption that i don't move it anymore because I went to WP:RM is not right. I still think it was kind of abuse and annoying just to block without mentioning / talking / explaining this. Instead of answering my question to an end, Cyrius blamed me for words I used and behaved like the holy father - infailable. This arrogant admin behavior is something I really hate in WP, and now within few month only gave me the third time the feeling of a two class society.

Ezhiki, thanks a lot that you had a look into the issue. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias posted on WP:RM back on Jan 5th. Apparently dissatisfied and impatient, he then moved the page twice on Jan 6th (around 20:13 UTC) immediately after he orphaned it between 19:55 and 20:10. Not only did he move the page, but he oddly replaced the redirect with what can be best described as a disambig page -- something that we just don't do in Template-land. I think he did that specifically because he knew someone (me) couldn't move it back to it's original location. I asked on IRC for assistance, and Cyrius agreed with me and moved it back. For Tobias to say that "it was not used anywhere. So it wasn't a disruption" is disingenuous. -- Netoholic @ 04:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand the issue. I did not post a request to move your template, I made a request to move the original (in use) template to the standard name, as was proposed some time ago. You created your private template at the place where the original template was meant to be moved. So I was not all "apparently dissatisfied". Try again Neto. Are you a troll?
"something that we just don't do in Template-land" - something that most users not do is to replace templates in language articles without telling anyone with a version created in obscurity. And something most users don't do: blockade renaming under considaration by simply creating a template in the place where it was considered to move the official in use template. But hey, you warned us? [1]

You were and are disrupting the work within the language project. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox:Language proposed solution

Folks, please remain calm and don't insult each other. No one is incorrect here and/or tries to do any harm on purpose, you just see the priorities differently, that is all.

After hearing out the comments above, it looks that my original summary is mostly correct. I hereby offer you the following compromise:

Template:Language in its current form obviously violates WP:AUM, which is what Netoholic is trying to fix. WP:AUM states that metatemplates are harmful for the following reasons:
1. they create extra server load when called (a template nested in another template leads to three server calls—one for each template plus one for the article);
2. they create very heavy load when edited (every page containing templates need to be updated after the template is edited);
3. they create possibilities for DoS attacks and for vandalism (if a template is vandalized, all pages that contain it are affected).
Template:Infobox Language, which does not use metatemplates, is inferior to the Template:Language and is in need of much work. Putting it to use in the article will greatly diminish the quality of affected articles.

It is proposed to protect the Template:Language from editing. This measure will address the most important points of WP:AUM—1.2 & 1.3, while preserving the quality and integrity of the articles which already use this metatemplate version. In the meanwhile, the community members currently involved in developing Template:Language should redirect their efforts to assist in development of the Template:Infobox Language. As soon as there is a consensus that the latter template is on par with the former one, all references to the Template:Language should be replaced with Template:Infobox Language.

Please indicate your acceptance of this proposed decision. If you find it unacceptable, please indicate below which portion is not to your liking. Once all involved parties accept it, the decision will be posted at Template talk:Language and Template talk:Infobox Language for the rest of involved parties to see and comment on.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUM != WP:DUM and WP:AUM != WP:NUM
- a= avoid, d = don't, n = never
if the Netoholic template is accepted it should be copied into the original template {{{Language}}}
the move of the original template to the standard name, has nothing to do with the WP:AUM violation accusations

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Vote

Hi Ezhiki,

As per your opposition vote to my ArbCom candidacy due to the lack of questions, I've elaborated on my statement and explanation at the questions page. I welcome any further questions to be asked to clarify any of your doubts, and let me know on my talkpage if it's urgent. Thank you for your interest! :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking time to re-work your statement and answers, but, unfortunately, those were not the only reasons why I opposed (I tried to keep my comments brief). Sorry!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]