Jump to content

User talk:Bishonen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 23:36, 13 March 2007 (→your help is needed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11




Wikimood


Bookmarks

ice
sandbox
favorites
removing warnings
moods
RFAr/V
RFAr/Giano
RFAr/Ghirlandajo
RFAr/Inshaneee
Inshanee on ANI
BD on ANI


RFC minor formatting

I don't blame you. It's quite misleading that user RFCs and article RFCs even share a name, as they function and are formatted quite differently. The most important thing about user RFCs is right at the top of the template: there must be a co-signer of the RFC, somebody who has attempted (independently of Anynobody) to resolve the issues with JA. Both Anynobody and the other editor must sign, and provide evidence of their efforts to resolve the problem within 48 hours of creating the RFC. Evidence means diffs. Everything else can pretty much wait, but the 48-hour thing is obligatory, and if it's not complied with, the RFC is highly likely to be deleted as soon as the 48 hours are up.
What I'd prefer to do is move the page into Anynobody's own space, in other words give it a name of the form User:Anynobody/Requests for comment/Justanother; stop the people who have already been asked to comment; move it back into Wikipedia space later, when it's a bit more ready to meet the world; and start those 48 hours then instead of now. OK? Then I could give some help and advice tomorrow, as I'm about to go to bed right now. (Such is my timezone.) If you reply now—right now—I can move the page; if not, please confer with A and move it yourself if you know how (it's easy), or ask any experienced user. For instance one of the freaks that hang out at this page of mine. And don't list it on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct yet! Bishonen | talk 01:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Did not get to your comment early enough, but added myself as a party and some evidence. Let myself or User:Anynobody know how it looks/what should be done at this point... Also, what is the best way to notify previously involved parties about the existence of the page in a neutral manner? Smee 16:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well... I'm actually a little frustrated that you asked my advice and then ignored it. Changing the page into a userpage until it's ready is the way to go IMO, especially because then there'll be time to deal properly with the "dispute resolution" thing. Changing it into a userpage can be done any time as long as nobody has commented, after that it'll be too late. But never mind, this is what to do with an RFC that's already in Wikipedia space (=has a name beginning with "Wikipedia"):

  • The name of the page should be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother. This is standard, and Anynobody, who's making the request, isn't supposed to be in the title.
  • The page must be listed and linked on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.
  • About notifying people, that's a little delicate, indeed. The only person who must be notified, and perhaps the only one who should be, is Justanother. If you want to spread the news, you obviously have to be careful not to simply notify people who have issues with Justanother. Not sure what you mean by "previously involved". Involved in what? Anynobody seems to be asking for comments on the way the two of them have been interacting—how is anybody else involved in that?
  • The links at "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" are no good, to put it brutally. Posting warning templates on JA's page certainly doesn't qualify as attempted dispute resolution. (Didn't I tell you once that it was frowned on?) Dispute resolution means a bona fide attempt at reaching out, and I think you may be too upset with JA to be the best person for it. Suggestion: try asking Jossi, who knows the ropes, to contact JA and try to talk with him about Anynobody's concerns. (Yes, I know there's little time for that... people do tend to run short of time at this point. The way it's looking now, practically any admin will delete the page after 48 hours, if JA requests it.) A technical point, also: the top 3 links under "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" don't work, and I think there are some more on the page that don't. You need html links for talkpage sections, and you need permanent links, that'll still point to the same section after the page itself is archived or whatever. And, as the instructions say, linking to a whole page isn't useful. I can easily format the links so they work right if you like (just ask), but you do need to have better dispute resolution to point to.
  • I don't think Anynobody should put his reason for making the request on the talkpage, it should be on the main page. Under "Statement of the dispute", perhaps, or "Description". (It's a very nice explanation—it's good to see a RFC that's not full of acrimony and it's-all-his-fault —but it would be even better if it was a little shorter.)
  • Finally, I'm sorry it's such a bureaucratic nightmare. You probably weren't expecting that. User RFC's are horrible timesinks. :-( Bishonen | talk 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My apologies.

  • Well... I'm actually a little frustrated that you asked my advice and then ignored it. - Please understand that I had started to add to the RFC, upon request from User:Anynobody, before I had seen your suggestions, so I did not "ignore" your suggestions, it was just too late. At any rate, I will try to implement some of your suggestions now. Please bear with me, as you are correct - I am unfamiliar with this process. If you feel you can adjust the page, be my guest. Smee 00:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
"Changing it into a userpage can be done any time as long as nobody has commented, after that it'll be too late." Nobody has commented, so I can still userfy it to give you more time for dispute resolution. Shall I do that, or do you think you can have it done up right within the 48 hours? I won't do a technical fix of the links at this stage, as I think you need links to better places. Good that you pinged Jossi. Anybody can list the page, but if you do want the page userfied, it shouldn't be listed yet. Bishonen | talk 01:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I am not opposed to userfying the page, but User:Anynobody started the RFC initially, I was just responding to his request that I add comments/evidence. If you or Anynobody wishes to do that - I have no objection - but I probably should not. Smee 01:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, I'd better not, then, I assumed you two were in touch. But I've moved A's explanation from the talkpage to the project page. Please let him know that he should sign it, if you speak — no reason to make the reader dig around for who is bringing the RFC. Bishonen | talk 01:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I wouldn't know any more than you. I've only "spoken" to him through Wikipedia talk pages. But I will let him know if I do. Again, as User:Anynobody started the RFC, and not myself, as far as I am concerned your judgment is fine. Smee 01:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm really sorry to cause so much trouble on both of your parts, rest assured I'm learning. Also please understand I am very thankful for your help. Maybe an RfC was the wrong road for me to take? Essentially I'd like other editors to take a look at my interaction with User:Justanother. I honestly don't know if I'm wrong or right, so my intention in listing myself was making it clear I'm willing to accept accountability for any errors I've made. Anynobody 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC) To be clear I'm happy to accept any suggestions. Anynobody 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better than an RfC, that as Bishonen put it are "horrible timesinks" (an opinion that I also share), would you consider informal mediation between you and Justanother? Sometimes having such a third-party assisting can really help in disputes such as this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I did consider mediation at first, but personally I'd like to hear from several editors. If I understand what Bishonen is proposing, it would be to move the page as is to a subpage under my userpage. Once it gets a few comments, then move it back to the RfC? If that's what the proposal is I have no objections. Anynobody 06:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not "once it gets a few comments". It won't get comments while it's in your userspace, that's the whole point. It won't start until it's moved back to a live RFC, and, on my reading of the always-vexed RFC rules, you would be able to restart the clock for those 48 hours when it was moved back. What you need the time for is dispute resolution. The rule is that there must be real attempts, by two people, to resolve differences with JA, or the RFC gets deleted. It doesn't have to be formal mediation, informal is fine, but it must be a real discussion—not scolding JA with warning templates and such. Of course the hope is that the mediation will be enough in itself, and the RFC become superfluous—compare Jossi's comment here. But if it isn't enough, it's in any case a prerequsite for the RFC. OK, I've gone ahead and moved the page into your userspace as User:Anynobody/Requests for comment/Justanother. Bishonen | talk 11:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A quick question before this goes any further, did it really seem like I was posting warning templates and scolding him? Anynobody 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, IMO your attempts were ok, I was talking about Smee's. "There must be real attempts, by *two people*, to resolve differences with JA". See the top of the RFC template: "at least *two people* need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed". You're only one. Bishonen | talk 07:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your reply, I'm sorry if that last question seemed blunt but what you were describing is exactly the kind of thing I meant to avoid. Considering that I didn't mean to create a situation where an RfC was necessary, for a little while I thought I was really messing up if you were describing my attempts the way I thought. I also don't want to give you the impression I don't consider your advice valuable, I just figured the worst that could happen was it got rejected. I know it may sound crazy, but I've been trying to do this without making things worse with Justanother. If I had to find somebody else to sign off besides Smee he might think I was creating a cabal against him (I wish I could say I'm joking). Anynobody 07:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with whatever User:Anynobody and User:Bishonen are comfortable with. Smee 07:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen I guess your proposal confused me because Smee and myself make two people trying to resolve these issues on User:Justanother's talkpage. I found a couple of other editor's who's posts User:Justanother archived from his talk page regarding similar concerns. I re-posted it for consideration. If it fails (the RfC), then it fails. I really do appreciate your time on this, thanks :) Anynobody 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uvak38/Veronica Yurach Aboriginal Artist

User:Uvak38/Veronica Yurach Aboriginal Artist Thank you Bishonen for moving my article and not just quick deleting it. I also appreciate your advice on the wording in my article that needs to be changed, you are the first who has made it clear to me what is wrong with it. As far as Veronica's story goes I will have verifiable published reference material from a reliable source.

Very cool. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Clue needed

Hi. I know that Smee respects your opinion so could you please send him a clue re his removal of my POV tag. diff of my objecting. Thanks. --Justanother 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And edit warring over it. ps Please see User_talk:Jossi#Your_offer and User talk:MrDarcy#PA by User:Johnpedia for a different perspective on Anynobody, i.e. the view from the trenches. Thanks. --Justanother 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And finally the false accusation of PA. Smee is back and true to form. --Justanother 15:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scared.

  • I am quite frankly getting scared for my personal safety due to User:Justanother's personal attacks in edit summaries and elsewhere. DIFF1, DIFF2. There is a reason for the language text in Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks that says comment on content not contributors. I am uncomfortable and not well with this, to say the least. Smee 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • OH MY GAWD. What a drama queen! Can someone please please please send him a clue! --Justanother 15:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry this conflict is getting to you, Smee. I have to agree with Friday and Justanother that there's no external reason for you to be scared, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. That's not what it's supposed to be like to edit here! I hope you'll find it in you to walk away from the most stressful pages for a few days and decompress by editing uncontroversial stuff. When people do that, they're often surpried and relieved to find that other people do pick up the slack. That the page does survive their absence. Or so ALoan tells me. ALoan, back me up here? Bishonen | talk 02:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        • Thank you for the support. Smee 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
          • And Smee, while I figured the "Scared" was all BS for effect, I do realize that I could have been wrong and you might actually be getting that upset and really be feeling fear. Just know, Smee, that I come in peace! Mean you no harm. Would certainly buy you a cuppa coffee if we were to meet. So no worries, man. --Justanother 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is hard to believe, but I will try. Suffice it to say that that situation would be unlikely to occur. Smee 03:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
              • Smee, I am a total sweetheart! You would love me. --Justanother 03:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • We're done here. while I figured the "Scared" was all BS for effect does not go very far towards acknowledging that my feelings are real. It invalidates your following statements. But thanks for the effort. Just try to act like a total sweetheart here on Wikipedia, like you would offline, and we should get along better. Smee 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
                  • I said that to explain why I called you a "drama queen" instead of making any effort to acknowledge your feelings and try to assuage your fears. Bishonen's reply highlighted my failing so I tried to repair it. Or at least repair the part where you say that you felt fear for your safety in the real world. As far as your "safety" here, I offered you an olive branch twice and you spit at me. That said, I have decided to give my sarcasm a rest but you can still expect me to continue to object most strenuously to any abusive editing on your part. --Justanother 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a bit late for backing up, but yes: if you are doing a job that needs doing, then I find that someone will step in and do it if you stop doing it. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Isps gate.jpg

This image was released under the GFDL. I'm not aware that such a release can be revoked. Is there a reason why it was deleted? -Will Beback · † · 01:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it was problematic, sorry. In view of what I've just read on the article talk, and what people told me on IRC, I've undeleted. Bishonen | talk 01:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. -Will Beback · † · 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clue-o-gram needed

File:HulkStamp.jpg
Anynobody thinks this is me . . . really
ROARRR!!

Would you mind helping User:Anynobody out with a clue? I am including a stamp because I figured that you probably needed one and that is why you were not able to clue Smee in for me earlier. Anyway, now Anynobody is impugning User:MrDarcy as "representing" me and being "out of line". Diff. I feel bad because Mr Darcy is on wiki-break and he was just trying to help me with a very rude post, User talk:MrDarcy/Archive5#PA by User:Johnpedia. Thanks. --Justanother 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my archive "You appear to experience some kind of Incredible Hulk persona when you really start to melt down (I was gonna say Jekyl/Hyde but the Hulk sounds less like an insult considering many consider him to be a superhero whereas the former is considered a monster)." --Anynobody --Justanother 05:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously Justanother I can tell you are really angry, but in this case you took things a bit too far when you had MrDarcy chastise Johnpedia for simply giving me his opinion in a user talk page discussion. Johnpedia might have phrased his opinion differently if he knew you would be watching. Also I can't invite you, you asked me not to post on your talk page anymore (Posting notice of the RfC is an exception, you still deserve to know about action be taken against you). Anynobody 09:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not angry, Anynobody; I am having a blast. When I get angry it is pretty obvious, as you well know (green skin, torn clothes, you know). --Justanother 15:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monstergram

(Oh, come on.) To whom it concern: little Justanother total sweetheart. What's with bad press for monsters? ROAAARRRR!!! Bishzilla (experiencing very good persona) | ROAR 07:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Little people not understand green skin monsters. Green skin monsters not bad! Only big! --JustaHulk 12:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A flower...

A flower for the 8th of March, from User:Zocky
Aww! It's lovely. Thank you Zocky. And thank you very much for the picture popups, the search function, and the link completion. :-) Bishonen | talk 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Happy 8th of March, Bish! The day that originally signified the rebellion of the working women against the kitchen slavery and called for a refusal to accept the oppression and Babbittry of the household work! In my Soviet and Post-Soviet years the holiday has already changed the meaning to a wussy combination of St Valentine's and Mother's day but I kind of like the original meaning. But you stay joyful! You hear me?. --Irpen.
--Heheh, this poster is very cool. Young radical banner-carrying (yet aproned) woman putting out her hand to pull free the older woman — her mother? — who is being crushed under the weight of household paraphernalia! Is that a samovar on top of her? Bishonen.
---Yes, it is a samovar all right. And the apron worn by the younger woman is perhaps due to her being a factory worker or something. Enjoy a pic on the similar theme below. The theme of "liberating" women from an old way of life was pretty big then. --Irpen 18:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Doloy kuhonnoe Rabstvo.jpg
Soviet propaganda poster from 1931. The text reads: "Down with the kitchen slavery! Yes to a new way of life!" The buildings seen through an open door carry their names. The sky-scrapper is a "Club", then goes "Cafeteria", "Kitchen-Factory" and "day nursery". Please note not only the message of the poster but the artistic style of Grigoriy Shegal (brief bio in en, some other works). --Irpen

What is all this about the 8th March being so special- is it someone's bithday? Giano 23:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! It is the birthday of Klara Zetkin that we all celebrate here. --Irpen 23:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Clz.jpg
Right, yeah - er I see! Klara's all yours Irpen.

Thanks Giano! You know, this woman was picked to symbolize the left-wing alternative to the "bourgeois" feminism. --Irpen
Beter still in 1971 on this day Joe Frazier beat Muhammad Ali - truly amazing date! Giano 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bish, in case you also like "sweet and cheezy", we are all human after all, here (Image:8march_landysh.jpg) is the image from the same country on a different theme. I am not allowed to post a fairuse image to your page :(, so only a link but see here for a full context. Cheers, --Irpen 02:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair Lewis was the first American to win the Nobel Prize for literature. That's the connection to Sweden, as Lewis wrote Babbitt, and he said, when he accepted, "Our American professors like their authors like their literature: dead." Well, Lewis is now liked by professors, and poor, dumb Mr. Babbitt has become an adjective. Why, he's a big man at the local Elk's Club. An Elk is not to be confused with Anne Elk, who was a noted female professor whom the Soviets decided to celebrate on March 8th. Geogre 02:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mrs. Babbitt was a pro with a chopping knife, but she would never have considered attacking her blobbery husband. Also, he was rather sexless, or befuddled about it, and lacked the malice necessary for getting an immigrant bride and then committing marital rape. He was a praire flower, not a Bronx cheer. Geogre 12:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Quick favor?

  • I tagged a bunch of images I had uploaded with {{db-author}}. Though it may not be the perfect db-speedy tag for this purpose, it works. If you have a chance, feel free to go through my latest contribs and delete those newly-tagged images. If not, I'm sure some other Admin will notice it. Thank you for your time. Smee 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel strange . . . head . . . swimming . . . clothes . . . stretching

Need help. Users Smee and FoO breaking rules at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother. Posting threaded counter-point to my supporter is direct violation of the instruction statement at the top of the section and at the bottom of the RfC. My response area mine, not for non-supporter, that must go on talk page . . . must . . . hold . . . on . . . 3RR on it now cannot do more . . . . need help. --Justanother 03:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users signing other subsection should not edit the the "Response" section, but that does not mean that they cannot comment below it. And it is highly inappropriate and conflict-of-interest for User:Justanother to be the one to "clerk" the page, and remove what he feels should not belong. That should instead fall to the mediators and outside parties involved in the RFC. Smee 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Smee, you are clearly misreading the very clear instructions. The Response Section is the section after Statement of the dispute and before Outside view. That section is for me and my supporters to make our statements without having to "defend" them in threaded discussions. Now take a look at the final bit where threaded responses to endorsements are specifically covered. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page. How clear does it have to be? --Justanother 03:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a signed comment directly related to an endorsement, which is allowed. But in any rate, it is not your job to police the RFC in the manner that you see fit for it to proceed. Not to mention it reflects poorly on your behaviour patterns. Smee 04:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
"it reflects poorly on your behaviour patterns" that I want to play by the rules? And you are wrong; it is not allowed. Wanna bet a week's editing? --Justanother 04:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silence --Justanother 05:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let others respond to this one. This bullbaiting is a waste of time. Smee 05:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well OK, I just made you an offer to "put your money where your mouth is". Nothing wrong with that. Guess you don't care to. --Justanother 05:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You about?

Hello Bishonen, got a quick favor to ask of you regarding a block you performed the other day. You about? (→Netscott) 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy got to it. You blocked user Headphonos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a week the other day. I uncovered that that account was a sockpuppet of the banned User:SirIsaacBrock and JzG wasn't around so I was going to ask you to indef. block the sock. JzG has taken care of it, he also indef. blocked Arcticdawg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another sockpuppet of the same user. Cheers. (→Netscott) 14:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok, thanks, I was real busy but I was getting to it... sort of. ;-) Bishonen | talk 15:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A favour

I think it is time that [1] was released into the wild - can you do it? I can't because of moving the history - but more importantly (you can all join in this) what does it have to be caled - I rather like the proper name "Palais Princier de Monaco" - Most people refer to it as the "The Royal Palace, Monaco" we already have the translation favoured by the official site [2] Prince's Palace of Monaco - I suppose that has to be the answer, a merge with that page but to my sunkissed ear it sounds clumsy and ugly. Giano 10:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has to be "Prince's Palace of Monaco" - I have made the others redirects. Giano 10:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you don't want to cut and paste the article in your user page over the existing article, but would rather move it to keep the edit history intact? I have the potestas administratorum - would you like me to help? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ALoan, I think Bishonen is doing while we speak! Giano 11:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sweatheart Giano 11:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it—people couldn't leave the talkpage alone for two minutes. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. This is gonna be messy, avert your eyes. Bishonen | talk 11:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Zilla fix! Talkpage successfully merged with Project:Paranormal! All edit now! Bishzilla | ROAR 11:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Gulp, little user prostates self at altar of zilla's fury, thinks might be reprehensible. user learn better wikiteque - quick! [3] --Joopercoopers 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
/Bishzilla stuff little user firmly in pocket to keep safe from Bishonen's puny wrath. Encouragingly: Climb Reichstag now, little Joopercoopers? Bishzilla | ROAR 21:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A clue, a clue, my kingdom for a clue.

Diff. When people that have the clues do not share the clues then the clueless remain clueless. --Justanother 15:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks . . . a lot

Thank you very much, Bishonen. Really! I am going to try to enjoy a well-earned wiki-break! --Justanother 02:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted RfC

Hello Bishonen,

I see from your edit here you've removed this RfC. In your edit summary, you have stated that you see the parties' attempts to resolve the dispute were inadequate. However, the subject of this RfC has engaged in repeated egregiously uncivil and disruptive behavior, not only against Anynobody, but against any editor who does not share his beliefs or takes issue with his behavior. In fact, I had comments to add to the RfC, and to my surprise, the RfC was deleted. Please note I have seen efforts by Anynobody to resolve their dispute, and to avoid a dispute in the first instance. But as your edit cites that you view previous efforts of the dispute resolution as being inadequate, can you (as an experienced editor, especially in these types of matters) please suggest ways in which this type of dispute can be better handled and resolved, or what other steps should have been taken prior to creating the now deleted RfC? I seek the benefit of your experience and hope you can show the way here. Kind regards, Orsini 03:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

02:36, 10 March 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother" (This is much older than 48 hours with the certification still woefully inadequate, as I warned the participants several days ago, and Justanother has requested deletion.) Bishonen I understand you felt that it didn't meet the RfC requirements, however somebody else did and added it to the approved section. Moreover you didn't respond to my last post under the RfC discussion explaining that I was not the only signer, which is why it got approved I thought. You could have at least explained your view more clearly before deleting the RfC, either in the request itself or the RfC talk page.. I can see by your talk page history that you and Justanother are friends, and I suspect you may have let your feelings get in the way on this issue. I'm asking you to undelete the RfC, as there were other editors who have yet to comment. There certainly must be some way to escalate this matter above you, and must point out that if you take no further action I will research and pursue them. Anynobody 04:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could have explained my view more clearly? Gosh. Well, if you say so. I did my best.[4] Certainly there are ways of seeking review of administrative actions, and I encourage you to pursue them. The formal way is to open an RFC on me. A simpler, more informal way is to post on WP:ANI. See the page instructions: "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here." Bishonen | talk 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hello Anynobody, I can appreciate why you may be understandably annoyed at the RfC being deleted. However, I cannot agree with your assessment that Bishonen and Justanother are operating in a conflict of interest; in fact, please note this exchange with regards to the BabyDweezil case. It would appear the RfC User Comment process is very time-consuming, which is one reason why editors and admins are reluctant to pursue them, except in clear cases of disputes which cannot be resolved any other way. My personal opinion of Justanother's editing behavior is that it is inappropriate, however in order to back a new RfC, I would also need to demonstrate that I had made adequate attempts to resolve my dispute with Justanother, which I cannot do, as Justanother appears to me to become overtly hostile as soon as the premises he cites as facts are called into question. I find it difficult to reach consensus when such behavior is exhibited. However, I do believe and have observed that, to your credit, you have not only attempted to avoid disputes in the first place, you have also made considerable efforts to resolve them, despite Justanother's clearly uncivil and disruptive behavior, and the tag team games being played with an editor who has now been banned. It also appears to me that Justanother has a pattern of making comments to incite and provoke people, and initiate discussions in which his stated premises are inherently flawed; to cite one example of many: in the Barbara Schwarz article, he falsely claimed it was sourced mainly from postings to the Usenet and thus is not reliably sourced. I have read Bishonen's comments here and other comments about the process here and I hope Bishonen can suggest some ways to resolve the dispute. I do not personally believe Bishonen let feelings interfere with the RfC issue, and I believe you may agree that Bishonen may have had feelings to the contrary of those suggested after reading the exchange above with regards to the "section break and noticeboard disruption". Please review it, as it may change some of your opinions stated above. Kind regards, Orsini 09:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about instead of deleting, you could move it back to User:Anynobody/Requests for comment/Justanother? Smee 04:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
What, again? Sorry, no, that's not the way it's done. See the RFC instructions: "If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted." Not "will be moved to the userspace". Also, not "may" be deleted: will be deleted. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I think it's been totally deleted, so it needs to be started from scratch - if it's appropriate to deal with the issue in this way. Orsini 09:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest, Orsini? I'm afraid you've caught me at a bad time for it. I did suggest, as you saw at the top of this page, under the heading "Minor formatting", where I did my very best to babysit this RFC to one that would not have to be deleted. Anynobody had pursued reasonable dispute resolution, Smee had not. Note that according to the rules, dispute resolution must be done by two editors, and must be seen to have been done, in the RFC itself, in the form of diffs, under the heading "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". I tried to explain how vital this was, and repeatedly warned Smee and Anynobody about the 48-hour rule. First I tried to get Anynobody to keep it in his userspace, to give time for the matter to be taken care of; indeed at one point I boldly moved it there myself; he would have none of it. I explained to Smee what was wrong with the diffs he presented as dispute resolution — I quote myself:
The links at "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" are no good, to put it brutally. Posting warning templates on JA's page certainly doesn't qualify as attempted dispute resolution. (Didn't I tell you once that it was frowned on?) Dispute resolution means a bona fide attempt at reaching out, and I think you may be too upset with JA to be the best person for it. Suggestion: try asking Jossi, who knows the ropes, to contact JA and try to talk with him about Anynobody's concerns. (Yes, I know there's little time for that... people do tend to run short of time at this point. The way it's looking now, practically any admin will delete the page after 48 hours, if JA requests it.)
The links that were there when I deleted the RFC were no better. So, you ask, can I suggest alternative ways of resolving the dispute? Yes: try mediation. If anybody involved in this dispute wants further admin advice, I have to recommend you to ask someone else. I'm all talked out. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Talked out as you may now be, your efforts in spelling out things so concisely above are appreciated, and have not been wasted. Thank you for your reply. Best wishes, Orsini 13:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Deletionism is the Only Valid View

Character Sketch sat there as vandalism (not vandalized, but vandalism) with clean up tags on it for a good, long time. I don't know why I didn't delete it and create a new article so as to obliterate the history, but I suppose it was so that I could make a point about how more junk needs deleting and starting over. A valid subject does not warrant leaving garbage in place. Geogre 13:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (Addendum: it's also at a position against Wikipedia naming conventions. It soooo should have been deleted when it was a dirty joke. Not now, of course.)[reply]

Wikify! Cleanup! Replace deprecated template! Fix some spelling errors! Where would we be without the wikignomes! By the time I got to the people who changed the whole example sketch to "I like pussy" or "I like cheeseburger", I had every sympathy. They sure didn't make it any worse. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah. It started as original essay with incorrect information, then got labelled a bunch, then got turned into "I like pussy," and that was "cleaned up" to "cheeseburgers." An analytical essay? Huh? Mine's not good, mind you, but I also don't think we especially need an article on what a character sketch is. A character sketch is a ... sketch ... of ... a character. Geogre 03:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought of plumping it up with a bit of Pope? Remember the characters of women? I often quote "Some women have no character at all" to myself, in my head, when I catch myself with my hand in the salmiak jar. :-) Bishonen | talk 04:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
That's true, although, I suppose, to be nice about it, the "character sketch" is probably more common and better known as the "memories of Local Person" in the newspaper and the "portrait of Grotesque" that creative writing classes assign, so it would be a little mean to put in Atticus or Sporus or any of the women who have no characters in the Epistle to a Lady. Now, for an article on character, it would be so in. Geogre 12:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and ewwwww! for any candy that is only candy with the proper chemical added. Geogre 13:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Sorry to disappear into the ozone last quarter. Life gets complicated! Thanks for your input on the deletion vote on my user page. I appreciate the support for our little creative effort, even though it went nowhere. Even though my time is limited, I did manage to do some archiving and ran my watchlist during the last week. Some important material was lost to vandalism, so I see that things have not really changed much. I will not be around much for the forseeable future as I will be in Idaho for the next couple of weeks. Best Wishes. WBardwin 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Evidence

I know you didn't mean to, but I think mistakently labeled InShaneee as blocking Worldtraveller's account in your evidence page. As you can see by the block log, [5] InShaneee never blocked Worldtraveller directly, only indirectly when he was a IP on January 2 i think this is the log. I came to request you actually change the title of the section of your evidence page to "InShaneee's block of Worldtraveller', 3 January 2007" to "InShaneee's block of 81.178.208.69, 2 January 2007", because while the fact that it was Worldtraveller behind the IP, InShaneee never blocked Worldtraveller directly. Thanks! — Moe 03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hi, Moe. Did I refer to the wrong block log? That wouldn't surprise me, but I can't find where I refer to a log for the 24-hour January block at all. If I did, can you tell me where, please? As for changing the heading, or referring to WT by his (varying) IP, no, I'd rather not. I call the user--the person--Worldtraveller throughout--it's not a mistake, but rather a mark of respect. I don't think it has any potential for misunderstanding, either, since I don't discuss the circumstances of InShaneee's block of the anonymous editor at all (if I had, I would have gone into the IP thing.) I have assumed WT himself and others will do that sufficiently, and also canvass the IP thing to the point of boredom and beyond--the arbcom doesn't have any realistic chance to miss it. I discuss the aftermath. (Same reasoning with A Link to the Past, btw--I don't address the reasons for the block, I assume others will). I don't want that heading changed. But thanks for bringing it up for consideration! I appreciate your scrupulousness in taking it to me, rather than changing it yourself. (P. S. Wrong date? Weird. Thanks.) Bishonen | talk 03:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well, since it technically WT's IP and the section is accuratly describing everything else for the most part, I guess it doesn't hurt anything to say that it was in fact WT blocked instead of the IP. I just thought for the sake of accuracy it should be changed *shrug* no matter. Yeh, my scrupulousness is shocking too considering how many bold things I do without discussing it first :) Cheers! — Moe 04:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind me butting in here, but I think you may have misread CBD's original comment. He was indeed defending you against Tony's ridiculous attack. (and, Geogre, if you really don't know, eom means "end of message"). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I always tell my students never to write "In conclusion" in their conclusions: the words stop, so I figure that's the conclusion. Putting in a TLA to announce that there will be no more words is a bit weird, and saying, "This is all I have to say to you (link) and that's all I intend to say (eom)" is a bit...oh, let's call it brusque. Geogre 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I think you may have read it too superficially, so we're even. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
My paraphrase of CBD's coment: "Boy Howdy it sure does look like them fellas are conspiring together in a nasty convoluted plot with the sole goal of getting Inshaneee in trouble for some reason, but the AGF policy says we have to pretend it's just a crazy coink-i-dink, yup." Very inspiring stuff. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You go from strength to strength, dear boy. Bishonen | talk 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Now wait a minute. First, about "eom". It's an "email"-ism, sort of like the old radio-speak where when one person is done talking they say "over" and people take turns talking. When one is done, they say "over and out". In the radio world this was because the communication channel was half duplex and both folks couldn't talk at once. In email, it's been adopted as a courtesy to indicate a subject only message is not a mistake. This was only a poke to turn Bishonen's "you have new messages" indicator on. "Brusque" only if you don't understand the context. In context, it's meant to be courteous. I'm not CBD, and haven't interacted with him a lot, but my assumption is he meant this as a courtesy, not to be brusque.
Second, about CBD's original comment. I think Bunchofgrapes's paraphrase is nowhere near accurate. I'm not sure you've noticed, but I am one of the folks who objected to his block of WT. I'm on your side in this. But this doesn't mean everything CBD says is evil. My paraphrase would be "Hey, Tony, your interpretation of this requires a bizarre convoluted nasty plot that no reasonable person would imagine could possibly be the case." His phrasing was a little oblique (and he's later apologized about this as well), but IMO the basic message was supportive. There may indeed be more history here than I'm seeing, but this is how I'm interpreting this exchange. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it didn't look like anybody here was being brusque to you, in any case. I appreciate your taking the trouble to post. Bishonen | talk 02:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I think it's sort of cool that we have someone who, when presented with a clear choice, will reliably choose to defend the greater of two evils. If nothing else, he's a handy moral barometer to have around, in the sense of a compass that always points South. Nandesuka 02:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
/Bishzilla laughs majestically, whole page shakes and rumbles. Little Nandesuka be first to enjoy Bishzilla new SUPER POWER SIG! See how cool: Bishzilla ROARR!! 03:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
(→Netscott) bows down to Bishzilla's impressive signature. (→Netscott) 04:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, you might want to look at this, since it appears that once of your posts to AN/I was wiped. [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I was the last to know what damage I had done :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your help is needed

Hey Bish, I'm not sure if you got my reply for the e-mail. So anyway long story short, going back to several other similar cases of block-evasion/ban-evasion such as User:Nationalist, User:PoolGuy, etc, it is pretty apparent that there isn't a great distinction between an indef. block and community ban. Obviously, circumventing a ban and then getting rewarded for it just seems illogical. Seriously, this is a joke. But anyway, worst case scentario I guess is to go straight to arbCom and get them to define an actual distinction between block and ban. Oh and btw did Crum e-mail youb back? Your thoughts on this?--Certified.Gangsta 10:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Yes, he replied, it's me that's been real busy, sorry. But I saw the lates post on your page... it's a relief. Bishonen | talk 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Bishy. On a related note, do you think it's necessary to protect his talkpage too? Given that there are some crazy wikilawyering and that unblock requests have been turned down more than 4 times in his previous accounts combined.--Certified.Gangsta 23:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. Protecting the talkpage of a blocked user is a very extreme action, it should only be done in cases of extreme and ongoing disruption. On a semi-related note, I commented in that weird half-archived thread on ANI, don't know if you saw it? Bishonen | talk 23:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The gargle has worked

[7] a blessed miracle - he has found his voice. Let's hope he loses it again soon for all the good it does wiki-kind! Giano 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adm... admonish..? Oh, piss. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

FA FAQ

Hi Bishonen. You dropped out of the discussion after the first night re changes to WIAFA. I wrote up this because the idea of an FAQ for FAs met with some approval later. Any comments welcome. Obviously, we need to be very careful about launching new wording for FAs, but I think there are some sound ideas written down here, that need to be written down. Marskell 22:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&oldid=114925969"