User talk:Mercury~enwiki/Archive 4

Auburnpilot's comments

Actually, I think "now" is exactly what it was supposed to say - as in that is an additional reason to block Bluemarine, so he could "now add" it to the list of reasons. See? I think you should probably revert your change of them - at least ask AUPilot about it. Aleta (Sing) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I should not have altered the comment. I have left word on his talk. Regards, M-ercury at 19:11, January 5, 2008 19:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I see you've completely changed the reason now anyway.  :) Aleta (Sing) 19:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reinstated my comments. (And I'm male). - auburnpilot talk 19:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've sent you email, and commented on your userpage, and I apologize for the gender reference. M-ercury at 19:22, January 5, 2008 19:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Please pardon the question - I note on the talk page of Matt Sanchez that you say you protected the article due to OTRS. Are you an admin? I didn't see your name on the list of admins. - Philippe | Talk 19:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I have privately requested protection due to correspondence while issues are being worked on. I'm not an administrator. No problem with the question.  :) Regards, M-ercury at 19:28, January 5, 2008 19:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, it might be better to phrase that as "An administrator has protected...", since you didn't actually do the protection. There's another user confused about it. :-) - Philippe | Talk 19:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I used to be an admin. I'll rephrase. M-ercury at 19:30, January 5, 2008 19:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluemarine

These OTRS talks don't involve unblocking, do they? He was blocked by the community, so the community in public would have input on an unblock, correct? He was blocked by community consensus for attacking homosexuals and other incivilities.. Lawrence Cohen 19:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The message seemed to me that it could be provocative and it probably was not. Auburn and I have spoken and I am ok. My only interest is to assist with the bop aspect. This can be done via the user talk I think. I am not advocating an unblock. Only advocating meaningful dialog. To clarify, I think there could be meaningful dialog between BM and others. I'm not saying Auburns was not meaningful. I just misread the declination. M-ercury at 20:11, January 5, 2008 20:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything the guy doesn't agree with he deems "homosexual bias." He's very consistent on that point. I doubt that meaningful dialog can be sustained with him for any length of time. Shame that you got the article protected again, it was finally getting some constructive editing and a lot of inaccuracies were corrected in the short period when Sanchez was blocked and the editors were free improve the article without interference from him. I think the edits that caused your concern could have been dealt with using standard WP such as 3RR. Aatombomb (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's take things slowly and thoughtfully. :) There is some discussion going on right now at the talk page of the article at this time I see. I know this can be resolved to produce a fair, neutral article. Best regards, M-ercury at 20:31, January 5, 2008 20:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has been protected more often than not at this point (check the record.) It couldn't possibly go any slower. Aatombomb (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, you should familiarize yourself with this: RFC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aatombomb (talk • contribs) 20:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And now the Arbcomm entry at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Matt_Sanchez. -- ALLSTARecho 04:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Beesley Incident

The SilkTork Decency and Honour Award, presented to Mercury for dignity during The Beesley Incident.16:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just read through some of the pages relating to Angela Beesley. I can see arguments for and against deleting/keeping the article, but what I am not in doubt over is your explanation of your thought process. It appears to me you did what you thought was the correct thing, and you behaved honourably in a situation that became increasingly ugly, with some questionable behaviour from some of those involved. That your decision was supported by some while questioned by others indicates the borderline nature of the decision. You applied your judgement, and you explained your judgement. I find that more than satisfactory. That some people felt the need to hound you into resignation because their own blood was up speaks more about their honour and their judgement than I suspect they would like. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 16:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I did respond horribly to the whole recall thing, and I should not have responded the way I did. Thank you for the kind words. M-ercury at 22:35, January 7, 2008

Fyi

You have been mentioned here. I am taking a step back for a bit to let things cool down. —Whig (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!

Dear Mercury, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 15:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. Regards, M-ercury at 05:27, January 13, 2008

wise

Your wise comments on AN shows that you have become wiser since your last incident with WP. Keep on doing this and you will be drafted to become admin one day. Wikipeace2008 (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for kind words, regards, M-ercury at 05:27, January 13, 2008

I don't care about your background.

Dropping a 10,000+ byte multipost is vandalism where I come from. HalfShadow (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: PM

In the "Requests for clarification" section on WP:RFAR. Kirill 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for quick reply. Best, M-ercury at 00:39, January 14, 2008

This is a very noble gesture from you, M. User:Dorftrottel 01:27, January 14, 2008

Thank you for kind words, Regards, M-ercury at 01:29, January 14, 2008

Unblock requests

It's probably best to let admins handle these, since only they have the physical means to unblock. Thx. El_C 01:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I'll still decline where a clear policy violation exists. I'm still experienced, and anyone can act in a manner befitting an admin. Thx, M-ercury at 01:41, January 14, 2008

I don't appreciate the "meh," and I think there's lots of other things can do, ones you can actually act on. El_C 01:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Retracted. I can decline, but I won't be able to accept. Can you show me where I am being disruptive? M-ercury at 01:45, January 14, 2008

On DG, he was seeking a more substantive answer than the one-sentence review, then you closed his second unblock request with half a sentence. Unblock requests are not for support/keep/etc. per [name]. The past is the past. But if you're going to continue to review unblock requests, we're going to have a problem. El_C 01:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I do alot of stuff, forgive me for asking, can you link? M-ercury at 01:51, January 14, 2008

Found it. I checked it, and I had nothing to add, other than I agree with above. I'll continue to decline clear cases as I see fit. Regards, M-ercury at 01:54, January 14, 2008

Again, unblock requests are not for support/keep/etc. per [name]. If an admin cannot offer a substantive response, they shouldn't respond at all. El_C 01:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And I will ensure that if I ever do a non admin unblock declination, it will havbe a full rationale in the future so there is *no* question. Regards, M-ercury at 01:58, January 14, 2008

It's not just that. I am also uncomfortable having someone who is only rejecting unblock reviews because they can't take on ones they feel meet approval. Blocks are just sensitive, more so than XfD, I think, where nonadmins can close some requests. I have never heard of a nonadmin handling unblock reviews, ever. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but do you really want to be the user who only rejects the unblock requests he handles? I don't actually think you do/thought that through. Thanks. El_C 02:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'll stop. M-ercury at 02:09, January 14, 2008

• Thanks, I appreciate that. Sorry if all that came across as a bit overwhelming. El_C 02:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Its ok. Regards, M-ercury at 02:14, January 14, 2008

Note about second proposal related to restrictions of Gp75motorsports and Blow of Light

As someone who gave your input into my initial proposal, would I be able to respectfully request your input into a secondary proposal which addresses issues related to the restrictions placed on Blow of Light specifically? Your input into gathering consensus at this discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up. Regards, M-ercury at 13:19, January 14, 2008

Auto-archive bots.

Hi. I've read that there are three bots which auto-archive talkpages: MiszaBot, ClueBot III, and MercuryBot. What are the differences between them? Which one is best? In other words, which one is prone to the least errors and stays up the most often? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they are all equal, but I've not done that much checking. M-ercury at 00:21, January 16, 2008

A follow-up

Hello Mercury, I just wanted to say that it was a good thing that El C informed you that it's unwise for non-admins to decline unblock requests, even blatantly disruptive unblock requests. You see, before my first RfA, I declined a few unblock requests, and during my first RfA, I was opposed for it. Like you, I knew I could decline but not accept unblock requests, and tried to give help in that area, but in the end, it didn't help me. Good idea on deciding to stop answering the requests, at least for now anyway. Acalamari 18:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for kind words. Regards, M-ercury at 00:21, January 16, 2008

You're welcome. :) Acalamari 00:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hi...

I reverted your edit to the blocking policy. It does not address the indefinite options, so I have addressed it with this edit. Lets discuss. M-ercury at 11:39, January 10, 2008

My problem is with the duplication. If you want to repeat what is said in the section on unblocking in the section on proxies for clarity then do so, but please repeat it exactly. There's nothing special about TOR nodes over other open/anon proxies, they get unblocked when they are no longer open/anon proxies. There's nothing special about TOR nodes that are dynamic IPs either, they are only blocked for short periods, as with all dynamic IPs. With that paragraph you've created special rules for TOR nodes as opposed to all other proxies when there is no good reason to do so. --bainer (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I did create a special rule with regards to the consensus on Tor nodes in the Tor node discussion. Consensus with regards to blocking (not unblocking) was that we will not be blocking indefinitely. Please review that discussion, and let me know if you want/need clarification? Best regards, M-ercury at 13:00, January 10, 2008

I don't see a consensus here for the change you made. You have two people agreeing with you and four people disagreeing with you. The comments of 1 != 2 and Mr.Z-man are in line with current policy, that is, we block the open/anon proxies, and unblock when they're no longer open/anon, bearing in mind existing policy on blocking dynamic IPs (dynamics aren't going to be getting indef blocks anyway, TOR or not).

I also don't understand the fervency to have a different rule for TOR. Other open or anon proxies get turned off sometimes too. --bainer (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I counted more than two supporters of a non indef block. The arguments of those were strong. Perhaps we could get an uninvolved opinion? M-ercury at 00:21, January 16, 2008

userpage spoofing etc etc

Feel like mfding his userpage? I am right on the edge of just deleting it, banning him and being done with i. He is a ridiculous cycle of drama with little to no benefit to WP at all. Viridae^Talk 00:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am currently considering some options. He is considering removing the message bar, so if he does that, as far as he and I are concerned, I will consider it resolved. If not, I might RFC it, or I might revisit consensus on UI spoofing on a larger horizon. MFD'ing may cause a consensus discussion on the entire thing, but it would be focused also on CG, and I'm not sure this is what we want. But then again, I have not looked at his contribution history, so I do't know if he is contributing to the project in good faith, or not. I might look into it later. You are however, free to MFD the page at any time. Regards, Mercury at 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I allso take issue (as do other people ) with the china=shame bit. Which he also steadfastly refuses to remove. Viridae^Talk 01:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is good policy basis to remove the offending bits, do so. If he reinjects policy violations into the userpage, protect it. If that does not work, consider blocks to prevent further disruption. I have to preface this with the fact that I have not reviewed any discussion about his user page except the one I started today. Mercury at 01:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that bit and the new messages bar should definitly be removed, though I'm ntot sure what a ban would achieve.--Phoenix-wiki 12:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Wow, thank you. That was really unexpected.   jj137 ^♠ 04:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the best kind, no? :) Mercury at 04:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been  Approved.. Please see the request page for details. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A recent post

I've removed one of your recent posts because I think it would be better for the matter to be addressed to the user via e-mail or offline. If you think about it I'm sure you'll see what I mean. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk. Mercury at 23:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

talk page?

"Did you mean for this to go on the talk page?" <-- No. --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whew

I cut and pasted my Doyle Brunson-esque meanderings just in time. I wish I could channel him as well at the poker tables. Anyway, since I haven't said it yet, welcome back! -- Kendrick7^talk 03:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for kind words. :) Mercury at 03:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

This is a bit beyond the policy proposal, so I hope you do not mind my asking here. You have sparked my curiosity. What do the entries in my logs and user rights changes have to do with anything there? That is to ask, how did you come to that conclusion? :) Best, Mercury at 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How can I mind? I brought it up in the discussion. I was checking your user rights log to see if you had been a checkuser (forgetting that the CU flag doesn't seem to appear there) when I saw that you seemed to have some problems with another "Mercury", along with a number of strange actions taken on your account (a 5-second block, a sysopping after a voluntary resignation, blocking yourself for vandalism, an OTRS deletion, etc.). I still don't understand what all that is about, but it had made me suspect that you've been the target of vandals. I thought it might explain why you seem so anxious to get this draft policy approved in such a hurry, even though almost none of the people to be charged to execute it had commented. (I haven't been back yet to see the current state.) I was trying to express my understanding toward someone I thought might have a personal need for the policy, but in retrospect my comment sounds more like some vague insinuation. For that, I apologize. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and I apologize for my reply comment on the policy debate, it was a bit uppity. Mercury (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mercury/Recall and User:Mercury/RFC

Hi... I'd like to ask that you consider (asking for the) undeleting (of) these, as they have valuable information that will be of use to other admins, as well as being part of the historical record. It would be greatly appreciated. I'd be happy to discuss further with you. ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have considered it, and I have decided not to request the undeletion. You are free to edit the historical record to reflect the fact that I had and certified a recall petition, and that I had an RFC. However, after weighing the cost benefit ratio, I've decided that the benefit of the recall information being available costs too much to me. I want to be a productive editor, and this really has no net loss on the main reason we are here. Let me be, and let me move on please. I'm embarrassed by my actions, and I want to learn and move on. Can we compromise? If Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mercury 2 ever turns blue, I'll restore it. Will that be ok? Regards, Mercury (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I do want to clarify a little. It was in my userspace, so technically, the deletion was permitted by policy. We had our recall, and the end result was my desysopping. It has served its purpose, and was only a tool for me, nobody else. It was a tool for me to gauge community trust in me, per my original promise on my RFA. I'm finished with it and have desyopped myself. No crat will resysop me, not after that. And I've already been declined.

To address it's usefulness to helping folks decide what to do and what not to do, they will need to decide for themselves. I do not want to be a continuing example of how to fuck up a recall. Best regards, Mercury (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. To learn from history, it has to be available to be learned from... Just because an RfC, for example, is in your userspace doesn't make it subject to deletion at your whim. It could have been anywhere, really, and it's just an accident that a page with 90% of the edits by others happened to be where it was... I'd be more sympathetic if you weren't so stridently going around poormouthing CAT:AOTR and messing it up for everyone else. Nevertheless, you have a point. Let me contemplate and seek input from others... there's no rush after all. ++Lar: t/c 01:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot

You might be able to help me understand what I'm doing wrong here, since you seem to have some familiarity with the code. I tried to set up automatic archiving for User talk:Smith Jones but when I set the algo to old(1d) it did not do the job for a week. I then changed it to old(24h) to see if that would work and it has not archived since I did so (more than 24 hours ago). Any advice you can provide would be much appreciated, not only to help Smith Jones avoid wanting to manually delete comments on his talk, but also so that I will know how to help others when archiving is desired. —Whig (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked into it, but I need to read the code :) I'll see whats going on. Might take a day I think. Please forgive the delay. Regards, Mercury (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your signature border

I was interested to see that the border of your signature seems to change colour randomly when posted. Is that simple to do without leaving a whack of wikicode lying around? Please share your genius with the rest of us! :-) (NB, I'm assuming you don't simply update the colour by hand) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 10:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

ya

i don't like wikipedia as much as other wiki's, so much harder to contact the admins... i think the runescape page needs a protecty, theres alot of spam and other problems running through it so i think we need a protect for it.--Cody6 (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk page

Nothing in WP:BAN says anything about protecting a user's talk page, Mercury. I believe you interpretation is incorrect. I had thought you'd just made a mistake, and would have come to you first if you still had the mop. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection#Request_of_unproctection_of_a_User_talk_page. Policy shouldn't be open to interpretation anyway IMO; that just means they need to be fixed one way or the other. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ban specifically states that users should not be editing anything, not even talk pages. As PM has soapboxed before, the protection was to prevent it during the ban. Mercury (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote "Banned users' user pages may be replaced by a notice of the ban and links to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits. Unlike editors who have been temporarily blocked, banned users are not permitted to edit their user and user talk pages." Mercury (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but, I'm not banned (last I checked!). I'll edit that page if I darned well please, amigo. No reason bots, etc., shouldn't be able to leave a message there, either. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats not a nice attitude my friend, and I hope I have misinterpreted. Why would you leave a message for a user who can not respond of affect anything? Also, did you catch my note about preventing further soapboxing? Regards, Mercury (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. I unprotected that page on request at WP:RFPP, because it's protection is not permitted under the protection policy. WP:BAN deals specifically with user pages, and not user talk, and while banned users shouldn't be editing their talk page, unless they are causing some problem by doing something, we do not need to protect. This allows the user to appeal in some sort of extraordinary circumstance, just in case, and unless the user abuses that ability by doing something else, it would not be correct to protect the page. In the case of abuse of the talk page, WP:PPol does suggest that we protect the page ("in the event of persistent inappropriate editing") but until that happens I don't see why not just to leave it, just in case. Falls back to WP:AGF. I will watch the page, and protect it if needed, and sorry for not notifying you. Prodego ^talk 01:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Prod... Thank you for responding so quickly. It is a judgment call given the prior soapboxing. If you will watch the page, I'm amenable to that. This works for me.

I've sometimes forgotten to let people know, so these things happen, and I understand. I'm glad we can come to a workable agreement. Best regards, Mercury (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) Again, the ban ends in February; I would agree with you if this was an indef. I don't recall any history of soapboxing with this user, and I crawled his edits somewhat thoroughly during the ArbCom case. (update) But yes, I believe Prodego is right. (update 2x) I'll watch the page two, but I doubt with a month left until his furlough, even if he were prone to soapboxing, that he'd come back and foul things up now. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I tend not to inform admins whose actions I reverse, I consider it a bit of a waste of time. There is a reason all admin actions are reversible, and I have always adopted the policy of allowing anyone to undo my actions, and if I care about the action, I will notice and challenge it. As such, I will do the same with everyone else, provided that I fully understand the issue, and am sure that I am performing the correct action. Should that admin disagree, they could undo my reversal (or not) and contact me, I am always happy to discuss the situation, and resolve the issue. I feel that this will make things run smoother, rather then running and getting permission from everyone. If they don't like it, they can undo it, and no harm done. Prodego ^talk 02:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That is understandable. I guess I just wanted to give my 2 cents regarding the action, but we all don't get what we want :) . I should trust folks to make correct decisions and not expect to be contacted. Even if I disagree, you made the correct decision giving that you monitor the page. I support it. Regards, Mercury (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which was unsuccessful with 19 support, 18 oppose, and 5 neutral. I have signed up for admin coaching and will retry later on in a couple more months.

- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)