User talk:Mr. IP: Difference between revisions

[Welcome notice]

Thanks! Mr. IP (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia Mr. IP! I noticed you just joined a few days ago, so welcome welcome!

About Wikipedia:Alphabet soup, I am sorry that it is out of date. You can help fix that by adding things as you find them. If you think that it merits inclusion on the list, go ahead and add it. If you have any questions about the list, just ask on its talk page.

Have a nice day! - LA @ 13:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only to let you know, little catches like this are seen and appreciated. Thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopped by to leave you a note. That is, I fully agree with the general message (as of this edit) contained in your user page. While I am a dedicated vandal fighter, and I do see loads of IP vandals in my sessions, I also see just as many constructive edits from IPs too. I would like to think that most experienced vandal fighters would agree with me (and you) that IP editors and their edits should not be subject to prejudice simply because they are not registered users. All edits should be examined on their own merits and not dismissed because of who made them. Cheers! κaτaʟaveno^T_C 19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This essay I recently wrote on the issue might be of interest to you, Mr. IP. Skomorokh 19:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand you have strong feelings on the matter, but I'm not very happy with the way you're using RfA candidates as a captive audience for questions on their view of IP editing. Those questions are pretty political and don't in my opinion add much to the process. Concerns have been raised that candidates are being overwhelmed with questions that aren't very helpful to others making up their minds as to whether they are competent to hold the post. RfA shouldn't be a political or popularity contest, just a way of finding out if people can be trusted to do the job - please rethink your approach to participating in RfAs. WjBscribe 21:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[I have responded on WjB's talk page.] Mr. IP (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how you feel- I'm explaining that RfA isn't the place to find out admins' views on IP editing. Try raising the question at a central location, like the Village Pump or approach administrators' on their talkpages when they aren't going through what many find a very stressful process. I'm not happy with RfA being an opportunity for those with an agenda (regardless of whether it is positive or negative) to push it. As to the general question issue, the views of the majority are pretty clear and the record low numbers of people willing to go through the process has prompted me to take action. Please find another forum to ask your questions. WjBscribe 22:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins have talkpages and email addresses, you are free to ask them whatever questions you like. They are free not to answer - they are after all volunteers and may be busy. But please don't usurp the RfA process because you're unhappy with other channels available to you. WjBscribe 22:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment that "less editors are willing to edit the encyclopedia in general" isn't born out by statistics - both the number of users and edits continues to rise (though there has been a decline in the rate of increase). As to your plans for future questioning, I ask you (as I ask all potential questioners) to consider whether it is related to the candidate's competence perform the tasks required of administrators. If it is not, it may be removed. WjBscribe 22:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

Thank you for your nice note. No, no one else has discussed Adminship with me. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've come at just the right time. MOS and related guidance pages have evolved steadily aware from mandating this misconceived system to advising caution in using it (that's code for "don't use it"). It remains a heavily imbued convention, though, and it will take quite a while to change the culture. Just in the past few days, a script has been written and is under trial that removes date autoformatting from an article. It needs to be applied with care, since removing the auto exposes the inconsistencies in raw formatting that all of our non-logged-in readers have been seeing for years: WPians seem to react badly to seeing these and to blame the removalist.

If you're so inclined, you're welcome to use the script, but at this stage it must be done sensitively or there'll be a backlash from people who either don't understand the issue or are psychologically against any form of change. Even some folk who don't care whether auto is used or not are nervous about automatic changes of anything.

Let me know if you're interested. See here, and you may wish to chime in at MOSNUM here, where a number of people are arguing for the status quo; it's a matter of reassuring them that the sky won't fall in, and that people will be responsible in their pursuit of the goalofchanging the culture. We need all the support we can get.

Relevant guidelines are here:

• MOSNUM, which no longer encourages date autoformatting and which now prescribes rules for the raw formatting, whether they’re autoformatted or not)
• MOSLINK
• CONTEXT

Tony (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blows the back off of my eyebals everytime I see it. Is there any chance of you toning it down a little bit? Although I have a signature now that's Bauhaus-ian in the extreme, I used to do lots of "pimp my sig" for people, so ask if you're interested. Here's a quick knock-off option:

• Current:  Mr. IP, Defender of Open Editing  05:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible: Mr. IP《Defender of Open Editing》05:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's roughly 200 characters down to under 100, doesn't scream "look at me!" quite so much, and it's possible see the link to your talk without mousing over.
brenneman 05:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here... Blessed by the pot-stirrers, though they often get whacked with the spoon.

I sometimes walk into an internet cafe and edit happily while IP'd. It's equal parts amusing and dismaying to be blocked for "trolling" when asking politely about an admin's actions. (Having the block reviewed and having {{unblock declined|Obvious trolling}} appear in under a minute lacks the humour componant, I must admit.)

So, here's to Mr IP and his under-rated brothers *raises glass* long may they stick it up us all.

brenneman 05:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your messing with my essay was very good. Thank you very much! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you've mis-cited admin policy in your opening statement. Getting the mop isn't supposed to be a big deal for you. It most certainly is a big deal for the community, granting you the tools. Then again, I could be wrong. I'm not too sure about this, as i'm new to participating in RfA's, but decided to be bold. Thanks for your time, MattWT (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I think the political parties policy could work given a) the need for one! :), and b) the amount of discussion already had to tidy up some of the issues. I know that in the UK Registration is very easy, so registration does not necessarily mean notability, but in other countries I understand registration is a bit trickier - maybe this clause could be tidied up to make it clear that in other nations have different standards? Thanks for your support! doktorb _words^deeds 11:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. IP, I just wanted to clarify a few things. I do agree with the opposers from your RfA stating that perhaps making it so clear that the RfA was an experiment was probably a bad idea. Wikipedians tend to take ourselves and the project more seriously than we should; thus the notion that we were some kind of test probably didn't ring well with many. As I said there, and as you mentioned, it's tough to judge your suitability without being able to see your contributions. While it's understandable that you don't want to disclose your IPs that you've used, please see from our perspective that it's extremely hard to review your history and temperament. What it comes down to you, what I really wanted to explain, is that you're not necessarily unsuited for being an admin, but it's hard to give trust when there is no accountability. Happy editing. GlassCobra 14:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Don't worry - I'm not offended that people wouldn't take the claims of a 500-edit user with a mysterious past at face value - especially after the Archtransit disaster. That makes plenty of sense. When I say that I feel I may be unsuited to the process of admin confirmation, and possibly adminship in general, it's more of a separate personal reflection. I think I may be best helping out in other ways. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck in the future... defending open editing is an admirable goal. The "experiment" worked, despite the failure of the RfA. Adminship is a big deal after all... Oh well. As the Rolling Stones once said, "You can't always get what you want, but...you always get what you need." Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wether or not it was your intention your RFA gave me and many others a few good laughs at the innocence of the idea. I think your biggest flaw was announcing that it was an experiment, as that is WP:POINT in action. If your interested in Mediation, Im no pro but ill gladly show / help you. All the best   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured I might get knocked for POINTing, but I weighed it in the balance and decided I was okay to go ahead...an apparent error, to say the least :D At any rate, I'm very interested in Med work, and will definitely be asking around at some point. Thank you, Prom. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that your keen on mediation, its is by far one of the harder jobs on wikipedia, more so than doing any of the tasks admins do. You would Idealy need a good tolerance level, as a lot of the mediation work is content disputes, that revolves around otherwise mundane and primative things that only matter to the article enthusiest ;-)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the more boring something seems at first, the more pleasing it is to wade into the nitty-gritty. Perhaps I was born to mediate, haha Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 17:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message! I am eager to see your Hemingway articles (I am sure Papa would be proud!). Ecoleetage (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My little project will be starting up in userspace soon, and I would like to add for reference that any and all are welcome to jump in. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not suggest "dropping" adminship. I would instead keep on editing positively and re-consider sometime in the future. Sorry about your RFA. Malinaccier (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. I do think I'll be best able to serve the community in another capacity, even down the road, but I do appreciate the idea that I'm not in some way "ruled out". Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're very welcome for my support and comments at your RfA. I'm pleased to see that the experience hasn't driven you away: I know how stressful RfAs can be, even if they're going well! Even though you have no plans to run again, I hope you may reconsider that at a later date. I look forward to seeing future work from you. Best wishes. Acalamari 15:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for this, too. I'll be a Wikipedian forever, that I know. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I'd like to wish you the best of luck for the future, in whatever way you choose to contribute to Wikipedia. I feel that challenging the status quo is the only way to move the project forward and that we could do with more editors willing to stick their neck out in the name of progress - RfA is far from the only problem area these days. Unfortunately, given the circumstances, I could not support your RfA as it stood, but I very much look forward to working with you in the future. Best wishes. Rje (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. To be honest, I doubt that will be the last time I'm accused of POINT violation. I never mean to do it - and I would never touch mainspace with it - but a lot of the time I've just gotta stick my neck out, and I end up putting it out a bit far. I have a long neck. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, it's really nice to see that you've personally responded to everyone - that's the kind of thank-spam that really moves things forward. Honestly, I wouldn't say you should give up on adminship at all. Nearly all the opposes were based on your (unintentionally) pointy RfA experiment and/or your lack of visible experience you could point at. Neither of those things reflect badly on you personally, and if you feel in six months or so that you could use admin tools then I'd encourage you to go for it again, because everything I've seen suggests you'd be great at it - you just need to provide some more editing experience so people can be more sure of that. Good luck with your Wikipedia-ing anyway whatever you choose to do, I'm glad this RfA did provide you with useful feedback even if it did go rather badly! ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, man. I figured that since this was my first/last RfA, I'd go deluxe on the thankspam! It's not impossible that I'd go back into RfA someday — just that, knowing me, I'd probably make a hash of it again, somehow. All the same, it was quite an interesting experience. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 17:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I entirely see what you mean. I'm just saying that in the indeterminate future, you may find that you've amassed, in the course of your normal Wikipedia editing, a far more impressive set of contributions that you can wave around - and if at that point you decide you can handle another RfA, don't count out the possibility. Cheers ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be true, and I'm not one to strictly rule anything out. Appreciate the encouragement! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 17:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I went through your recent article-work, and saw nothing wrong with your contributions. I was wondering, would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to make it easier to revert vandalism when you come across it? Acalamari 16:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would appreciate that very much, actually. Countervandalism is one area where I've never worked, but I've been thinking lately about giving it a whirl, so this could be especially useful. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 16:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted. :) Just remember to use it on vandalism only, and not to use it to revert good-faith edits or to revert war with other users: misuse can lead to its removal. For additional information, and also practice, Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback is an incredibly useful page. Good luck. Acalamari 16:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on rollback. Welcome to the club! :)Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch, Acalamari and Erik. I'll read the NAS/R page through before I use the tool. Thankfully, I never revert anything except for blatant vandalism — I'm a hardcore talkspace consensus type — so that first part won't be a problem. Much appreciated. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 16:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, you'll do just fine with rollback. :) You're welcome for it. Happy editing. Acalamari 16:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]