User talk:Takenages

Hey, welcome! :) I see you already know your way around here, so, I won't bore you with the usual links.

Say, how'd you come to find RFA so quickly? SQL^{Query me!} 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, welcome from me. I have to say my sock radar was alerted so User:Alison may come calling. But I'll alert her to go with caution. Welcome back whoever you used to be...! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your questions have been reverted as the 5th certainly didn't assume good faith with potential admins, though if you wish to re-post your 4th question then please do. ^Khukri 21:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, as no one else did, I feel it's only fair to alert you to An ongoing conversation about you on ANI. SQL^{Query me!} 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Khukri - I would respond, but your talk page is semi-protected. I respect your opinion though I disagree with it and would appreciate working with you to devise a more appropriate question regarding an issue that I think is highly relevant to Wikipedia's reputation of late. Takenages 21:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey, on an unrelated matter, no more vandalism, like these: [1][2][3][4], please? I agree, a shotgun as a Cat deterrent is hilarious, and, I got a good snicker out of it, but, that sorta stuff has no place in an encyclopedia... Perhaps you'd be interested in Uncyclopedia? SQL^{Query me!} 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Taking the bait

OK, I'll try to partially answer your questions.^[5]:

4. If your adminship is granted, would you agree to be open to recall?

If you read my RfA, you'll see I volunteered for Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall as part of my opening statement.

5. Can you tell us your opinions on the appropriateness of "back channel" discussion (e.g. irc channels, secret mailing lists, etc.) regarding an established user's block and whether or not you feel that all discussions regarding user blocks and bans should be made transparently on wiki to insure its reputation as an open community?

I don't wish to comment on the ongoing controversy -- there are more than enough people still chewing on that one. I will speak to my own intentions as of this time; they may change as I get more experience as an admin:

• I don't do IRC; it seems like a pretty excruciating way to pass the time. Please don't make me do IRC; I hate starting comments with things like "OMG".
  • Having said that, I see IRC used as a powerful tool used by others in fighting run-of-the-mill spam and vandalism on a real-time basis and I'm glad there are others (not me) doing this. I'd hate to see policy changes shut that work down.
• I send private e-mails from time to time (maybe once a week?) to one or two other Wikipedians about Wikipedia matters, usually relating to spam. When I do this, it's usually to get a second opinion about something that looks fishy but without creating either public drama or prematurely labelling someone as adding spam links. In other words, I use it as a conservative tool to help myself discreetly avoid doing something stupid and painful to myself or someone else. As an admin, I would expect to do more of this (twice a week?) but in the same spirit.
• I'm on so many non-Wikipedia mailing lists already that I don't want to get on still another one. I occasionally skim the wikien-l list but it's way too much stuff for me to handle (I just looked -- 70 messages a day in November!).

As for any more general discussion of what Wikipedia's policies and politics should be, I encourage you to take your questions and comments directly to the policy discussion pages. Cheers, --A. B. ^(talk) 00:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Following suit

I understand why Hu12 removed the questions, but if they're genuine concerns I don't want to evade them. For now, I guess I'll follow A.B.'s example and post brief responses here. If someone thinks this should be moved back to the RfA, I don't have a problem with that.

If your adminship is granted, would you agree to be open to recall?

Yes. I think administrative status should be contingent on community approval. If that approval is lost, I don't think a desysop request should have to go through WP:RFAR. They (understandably) tend to accept only cases where there is severe and easily demonstrable misuse of sysop tools, which I feel sets too strong a threshold.

If your adminship is granted, would you agree to never participate in "back channel" block discussion (e.g. irc channels, de facto secret mailing lists, etc.) and agree to keep all discussions regarding user blocks and bans to be made transparently on wiki?

I don't want to make such a binding, no-exceptions promise, but I agree in principle that administrative transparency is important. Version 1 of WP:CEV (which I contributed to somewhat) essentially sums up my views on the issue — I think there are some legitimate reasons for using confidential evidence in decisions, but given the potential harm that can result (even when the outcome itself is proper) I think users should act on confidential evidence only when there are very compelling reasons to do so. Of course, as an admin I would also have to consider the recently-passed ArbCom principle and its clarifications (see FT2's summary), as well any policies/guidelines that might come out of WP:CEV.

Cheers, — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Takenages/Title

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:User:Takenages/Title|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. HamatoKameko (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Takenages (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The reason given was . I'm not sure I understand the meaning of this. Seems quite vulgar. Takenages (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC

Decline reason:

I've fixed your block summary. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 14:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No need to use the unblock request if you just have a question; the answer is that you were blocked because, as the banned User:Malber, you aren't allowed to edit Wikipedia using any username. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the evidence for this. Was it sekrit evidence? Takenages (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)