This user is an administrator, oversighter and checkuser.
This user has a bot (inactive)
Email this user.

User talk:Billinghurst

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search



Je suis Charlie
"Da mihi basium"
User language
en-N This user has a native understanding of English.
fr-1 Cet utilisateur dispose de connaissances de base en français.
Users by language

To leave me a message, click this link


Could you please exterminate[edit]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Australa_in_2012 - thank you in advance. sats (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Appreciated sats (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

request[edit]

Billinghurst sir It has been 5 days that I have asked for the global IP block exempt right on Steward requests/Global permissions‎ but the result has not been shown yet I request you to think for the right.बेनुपराज पौडेल (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Patience please.. We are dealing with something like 10k global rename requests, etc. We all are busy volunteers.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@बेनुपराज पौडेल: you have been asked questions, you haven't answered.  — billinghurst sDrewth 19:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
yes,I did.बेनुपराज पौडेल (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I will leave it to the conversations on that page to resolve this issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

MassMessage[edit]

Hello, plaase look: Talk:MassMessage#Blocked svwp Obelix (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tegel: Probably something that someone with local rights at svWP may wish to review.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello again. Averater have unblocked. Thank you. Obelix (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, local action and local discussion regarding the action. Svwiki is so large so this can be handled locally. -- Tegel (Talk) 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #151[edit]

Badges[edit]

Link GA has 73 entries, Link FA has 107 entries, Link FL has 9 entries. Many of them have been tagged for speedy deletion for more than a week. Me and Ladsgroup left messages to talk page offering to orphan the templates if asked. ptwiki wasnt to keep it for a long more. Two more wikis kept the templates for "historical reasons". I wonder what else to be done to reduce the numbers even more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Small wikis we know that it is due to not watching, big wikis can be due to process or their choice. For big wikis you will probably be best to ping local WD users active at those wikis to prosecute the case.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please delete su:Citakan:Link GA the same way you delete Link Fa in the same wiki so that we finish the task. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Make a further check in Link GA list for more templates that could be deleted or tagged for deletion if you have some spare time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted the file, and numbers of wikis reverted the requests. Their choice.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

username change[edit]

Hi Billinghurst

İ edited my request --Hacitalha (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #152[edit]

SUL rename question[edit]

Hi Billinghurst. Would you be able to answer a question I have about a rename you carried out in relation to the SUL finalisation? The rename in question is here. That user (previously 'Carcharoth' on fr-wiki) may (I am not 100% certain) have a Commons account of the same name (Commons talk page). I am asking because the fr-wiki name and the commons username were the two unattached accounts listed here before the SUL finalisation started. The fr-wiki name is no longer unattached (I think this is because of the rename you did), but the commons name is still unattached. I was wondering if a rename request had: (a) not been made; (b) been made but is waiting in a queue somewhere; or (c) the user doesn't realise that a rename request is needed. I don't speak or write very good French, so I thought it best to ask you (and in any case, the user doesn't seem active, though presumably the fr-wiki rename request was made somewhere, somehow). Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Local accounts at different wikis cannot be directly associated, we can only surmise. If there were email addresses associated with these accounts, then email address(es) for both accounts will have received the notification requesting moves. [All renames are up to date, I did an absolute truckload of them]

I am going to make an assumption that you are looking at the usurption issue, my advice would be along the lines of that we leave it until the globalisation takes effect and that Commons account will be moved, and then we can merge any other account that you have (for what was a local Commons account) to your SUL account. If that is the case, then put a merge request to SRUC and we will put it on hold for when the tools and the account are available.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The one remaining unattached account was moved and the other account automatically created (see here). I'll go to SURC and figure out now how to request a merge (though I'm guessing it may be a long wait). Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Mehran[edit]

I have a similar issue too, my Commons account is currently unattached. When can I have it then? Do I need to put a request to SRUC or it will be attached automatically soon? ● Mehran Debate 15:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
If your Commons account is unattached it can be moved whenever you please, the following notes apply. 1) You will need to confirm on the account that it is yours, and to where it is being moved (point to the diff here as the reverse confirmaion; 2) if you have Commons edits on this account and want them merged, you are best to wait until unification takes place; 3) if you have no Commons account on this account, then align the accounts details now, and put in a request; 4) if you have a Commons account on this account and it can be blown away, then put that instruction into the rename request for the move-in.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Mehran@Commons is not mine, it belongs to someone else who was not willing to rename it before. Currently I use MehranVB@Commons that is attached to another global account. Now I have no idea if it is possible to move MehranVB@Commons to Mehran@Commons since MehranVB is a attached itself. If it cannot be done, the best thing for me is to usurp Mehran@Commons and attach it to my SUL. If I am allowed to do so, could you please consider it as a request and move the account or it is necessary to put the request in SRUC? ● Mehran Debate 07:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
If your Commons account is attached to another, it is better to lodge a merge request at SRUC and when we get into the next stage (globalisation of all unattached accounts) we can then merge the two accounts.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, so for now can I usurp Mehran@Commons (which does not belong to me)? (I will lodge a merge request later) ● Mehran Debate 12:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
At this late stage the preference would be to leave it as it is. Then m@c account will be renamed as per the message, and you will then be able to get the account name, and we will merge your other account.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting help[edit]

At mr-wikipedia undersigned is trying to take small steps one by one, on improving copyright understanding and sorting out copyright related various issues. As of now I am looking for following help.

1) w:mr:Template:अविन्याविकासजग is designed to be part of copyright awareness campaign on mr-wikipedia. In Initial stage campaign is being conducted through MediaWiki:Sitenotice for getting maximum exposure. I need your technical help in tweaking (correcting syntax) w:mr:Template:अविन्याविकासजग this template so as I can include the same in a site notice.
2) Importing following templates from wikimedia commons to mr-wikipedia.
Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a bit hard to work out the purpose of the first, though I can see that it is missing an opening {| though I am not sure where it is mean to go. If this a template from another wiki then it would be useful to have either a redirect from the original name version. I will have a look at these other templates and import there where I can to your site.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mahitgar: I went and have a look and mrWP is not set up for transwiki import, and I think that the community should be discussing that should be a feature for your wiki. If you look at http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php and search for wgImportSources you will see that mrwiki has nothing, and I think that your community needs to have an RFC that discussion that you have a configuration to allow transwiki for 'en' 'commons' 'm' as a minimum. Have the discussion for a week, and if the community is in favour we will lodge a phabricator: ticket to have that implemented, then any admin will be able to import pages/template/... from those three wikis without the intervention of others.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply and view. About first I suppose I made mistake in hurry, after your hint I could sort it out myself. Your second suggession also is good one and we will go with the same. Thanks and Regards.

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Your lock of User:世良田二郎三郎[edit]

User:李登輝 may be another incarnation, judging from actions at Commons. --Denniss (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #153[edit]

how could an admin block an admin!? is there any rule for doing this!?[edit]

hi Billinghurst!

as an admin my IP is blocked by an irresponsible admin Mr Khangul just for the reason i have allowed and unblocked a user who is hard working, keen to develop, contribute in pashto wiki. see this for his countributions: Usman khan's contributions

plz have a look to his work. if you think that he (Usmankhan) deserved to be blocked by Khangul. and for restoring (Usmankhan) was that against the rule of wiki, or i have done something wrong for which Khangul (an admin like me) blocked me from wiki and deleted my pages where i have requested for bureaucrat.

plz take this matter serious and solve the prob which khangul create day by day to new users, and now for admins as well.

you will note that pashto wiki contribution is zero now a day due to khangul's behaviors with users.

best regards

note: my nomination page is also deleted by him. khangul deleted my nomination page for bureaucratship. its against wiki norms and laws.

--عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Umm, please don't take me for a fool, however you are not independent of the user UsmanKhan, so please do not pretend otherwise.

If my proposal meets with the approval of the community of stewards, I would think that we would be reviewing blocks on the wiki, and we would be able to review deletions of user pages.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

tools.wmflabs.org/checker: No webservice[edit]

Hi,

The transclusion checker tool for book digitizations on Wikisources is down and you, MZMcBride and Legoktm are listed as maintainers. Could please any of you check what have happened? Many thanks, Lugusto 17:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

When I next can get shell access I will do what I can.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Noting that this was done by the service itself which has some restart parameters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe this was fixed by running "webservice2 uwsgi-python restart" basically. Labs keeps changing things. :-( --MZMcBride (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I recorded the command into a text file within checker for future use.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Special:GlobalRenameRequest[edit]

Hi Billinghurst, some week ago I was asked to change my name on scn.wiki. I put the request and you told me to use Special:GlobalRenameRequest, but I have to merge the accounts, not to require a new name. Actually, in the it.wiki it says (correctly) that 2diPikke is already taken (and the same will be on scn.wiki). Can you explain me better what to do? Thanks. --Squattaturi (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Squattaturi: If you have mergers or changes that are not straight renames that need discussion, then please add them to Steward requests/Username changes  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

bot[edit]

will you mind confirming some of bot request?-Mr wikilover (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Bot requests are not something that I do. If you feel that stewards are not covering that page suitably then please leave a message at Stewards' noticeboard.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted my complaint[edit]

Dear Billinghurst you deleted my comment, I have a sincere grievance. Also I am being bullied by the other account of Khangul: https://ps.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%B1%DB%90_%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%B1%DB%90:%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%BE%D9%8A%D8%B1_%D9%86%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A8%D9%87 Seendgay (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the linked RFC as it was pertinent to the RFC, and in itself not pertinent to the stewards' noticeboard.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Btw i need your help in this, this user: "FreeatlastChitchat" keeps on reverting critical info of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. What can I do about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah&action=history Seendgay (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Address the issue on the talk page of the article (the purpose of the talk page).  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #154[edit]

Headless ducks[edit]

They seem to be running around like a flock of headless ducks, not knowing what to make of the CU result! So that is good ... Stho002 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Stho002: I rather thought that the whole concept of a Wiki community was that it should be egalitarian and therefore "headless". It is largely because you want to be the "head" that you have been excommunicated. Accassidy (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Pashto Wikipedia Proposal[edit]

Billinghurst we are very thankful to you for your help and resolving the Pashto Wikipedia's issues.Once again Thanks.--UsmanKhan (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@UsmanKhan: I have the hope that there will be the use of the talk pages extensively for contentious issues. You may even consider the development of a template for contentious issues. Similarly, where there is contention that an article tries to cover the area of contention itself.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Re bracket matching[edit]

Hi! Many thanks for your scripting solution posted here. I'm doing a lot of template work, and such visual aid is of great value. Now I'm trying to get the script to work. I tried to copy the js code into my global js depository = not working? I notice you have the code at en:user:Billinghurst/bracketmatch.js and then loads it at Wikisource by using // bracket matcher mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ais523/bracketmatch.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');. So why the special js depository? Now I have put the code here. Will that work? And is a special set of user preferences needed to get this to work? So far I've only worked with special css code, so js may be a different beast to tame… Face-smile.svg--Paracel63 (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Paracel63: That methodology calls the code from that enWP user's page of code, rather than having to maintain itself yourself. [Note that is how we pull gadgets from other wikis to maintain one set of code] To get it to work, after you have a preview of the text you will see the hypertext link "Parse" which toggles the bracket view. I am happy to review and set it up for you if necessary, just tell me where, I have the rights to do it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh you did link it, yes that is fine if you copied it all fine. That is the hard way and you have to maintain it yourself. Have a poke at my global.js to see how lazy you can be.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Many thanks for your input. I see the "parse" link, and it seems to work as expected. Only problem now, it only colours pairs of double brackets, not triple brackets (like in templates). I copied all your code, but maybe there was something else I forgot? You're free to fix my code here, if there is an easy solution. Best of wishes.--Paracel63 (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Best that you approach the author of the script w:User talk:Ais523 and ask him/her. I just use the code as is.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi again! Now I get it to work in templates too! Face-smile.svg The specific colour coding makes it easy to spot the specific pairs while working. But is there a way (w:User talk:Ais523) of pointing out with colour code (for example white against a black block or something similar), when the pair doesn't match up? Now you have to inspect each pair to see if they are the right amount of brackets in each pair. An "alarm marking" would find your attention much quicker. :-)--Paracel63 (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
<shrug> I just use it as is. Apologies for not knowing more.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Ais523 got back to me and explained here the problems involved. :-)--Paracel63 (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Pashto Wikipedia Block[edit]

Dear user:Billinghurst I was blocked on Pashto wikipedia for persistence to write about homosexuality. I just saw on the stewards board that other have been unblocked. Is it possible if i can also be unblocked. Adjutor101 (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I unblocked the sock PashtoLover that I believe is one of yours. Can you access that?  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have asked the user to disclose all socks and to choose an account, on Requests for comment/Support collaboration on Pashto Wikipedia/Requests/Adjutor101. That request was filed 08:21, 24 April 2015, after your reply above, so I'm treating it as separate, though this may resolve quickly. As you know, we cannot at this point be sure about socks, the use of shared access may be common. All that will come out in the wash. Thanks, Billinghurst. --Abd (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what it has to do with you. Last that I saw you were not a member of psWP. Stewards are elected representatives of the broader community with the authority to resolve matters. You are not. Your nose goes in where it is not needed, nor especially welcomed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Um, I've edited that project, though very little. I have no "authority." You have the authority to make decisions about rights and blocking and the like, to close. The community has the right to advise. Do we have that right, Billinghurst? If not, I need to know. --Abd (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
PashtoLover used my internet and computer [we are members a community the Pashto society.] He now uses the official PC at are office, I do not. My IP and Username are still blocked:
message
But now I am working on wikitionary to advance Pashto. I also take back my request as I am working now independently from the Pashto society due to personal differences with the head. Adjutor101 (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Billinghurst Adjutor101 (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I will let @Vituzzu: look after this as he is doing some checks through the community. Thanks for letting us know about the matter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your close of that discussion[edit]

I appreciate that was not the right venue but your close comment made it clear that not only was it not the right venue but you have no respect for me nor do you really care about the impact of functionary conduct on projects. You say that wasn't a venue for "blackening reputations" and in the process all you did was taint mine with that rather lousy statement. I'm sorry if I consider the conduct of functionaries to be a serious nature and that I thought the Stewards on meta might as well. I am seriously disappointed that you found it necessary to leave that kind of a closing statement and would suggest that perhaps you should change it to something less of a spit in my face for trying to do something about problematic behavior. Maybe soething like, not the right venue would be sufficient!Reguyla (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I changed it to Wrong Venue. Matter closed. There is no need to say more than that and again I am disappointed in you for that blatantly disrespectful comment towards me. Reguyla (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You bring a matter to stewards, knowing that the matter is not for stewards, about an individual when you are aware of the processes to resolve the matter is completely internal to that wiki. You use commentary that makes personal opinion that reflects poorly on the person. You were told exactly that it was not for stewards, and you continued the conversation, and debated the matter. If you don't like the closing statement, then maybe you should look at why the statement was made in your statements. On that page there is no ability for any stewards to make any commentary apart from "not our issue". I am disappointed that you thought that you could parade along that page with that matter more like a show pony rather than engaging with the target wiki in a meaningful attempt to resolution.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I knew that you would not be able to simply take action yes. I did however feel that the Stewards could discuss the matter and present it to the Arbcom and felt confident that if you bothered to take the time to look at it, you would see that Floquenbeam is a problematic functionary worthy of review. You made that statement because you do not like ME and you never took the submission seriously in the first place. I am blocked on ENWP because I think admins and functionaries should have to follow the rules and many of them feel otherwise. If I could discuss it on the target wiki I would, but I cant because a couple of admins won't let anyone unblock my account so I can even edit. But it wasn't even my personal issue that was the point here. It was Floquenbeams conduct that apparently is completley acceptable conduct for an admin/functionary to have as is leaving derogatory statements when closing good faith submissions by editors whom you personally do not like. Reguyla (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
and just FYI my change to your poorly worded close was reverted because its better for an admin to make an extremely poorly worded closing statement in a discussion that for someone to change it to be unbiased. Also for what its worth, any time someone complains about anothers conduct there are going to be "commentary that makes personal opinion that reflects poorly on the person". Otherwise its not a complaint, its a compliment. Reguyla (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
No we couldn't discuss it, and it is wrong of you to think that we sit as some arbitrary body to make public judgements on individuals at other wikis. Our personal opinions are exactly that, personal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh please, there is a discussion on that very page right now about the conduct of functionaries and admins on the Pashto wiki so clearly you are capable of talking about serious problems when you want too. There are routinely discussions about problems there that have been actionable for far less than when I presented. The mere fact that the Stewards won't address concerns to the WMF or the Arbcom about conduct on ENWP is exactly why the conduct of its admins and functionaries have gotten so bad. They know they can get away with it and you enable that behavior by degrading editors who bring up concerns in a venue that is related and that they have access too. Anyway, I am going to send an email to the Arbcom about Floq's conduct but it'll take some time to draft because the Arbcom requires a detailed legal package to even discuss the matter to ensure that nearly no one will even take the time to do it. That's assuming their spam filter doesn't delete it or they don't ignore the issue because it pertains to one of their own. Its a completely broken and non transparent process that is rife with abuse itself. But since you have no interests in doing the right thing and have essentially scuttled my attempts to fix the degrading situation I have no choice. Reguyla (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I am pretty disappointed that at this point its clear you have no intention of changing your insulting and inflammatory closing statement that's directed at me. If something would not be tolerated or acceptable conduct for an editor or IP to do, then an Admin shouldn't do it either and that includes leaving obviously unacceptable statements when closing discussions. Its clear that you do not feel that way unfortunately. Reguyla (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Please do not try to equate the issue of psWP community, with your issue with one user of advanced rights. psWP is a different case and different circumstances. I have already pointed you to the information page about stewards and the powers that we have, pWP qualified, and your matter does not.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course the circumstances are different but they are also very similar in many ways. The difference is, in one case you are choosing to act and the other you are choosing not too. The circumstances of every case is different. And just for the record, yes I do have an issue with one or two admins on ENWP because those admins are problematic and nee to be addressed in order to allow the success of the project and the abusive conduct those admins exert on the project. I also have a larger issue of the choke hold that the admin culture has on that community and the communities inability to address the problem because the admins running those boards won't allow themselves to be removed...including current and former members of the Arbcom. That is part of the reason I addresed the issue to the Stewards and yes again I knew you couldn't simply take action. But, you could absolutely have allowed discussion about the problem rather than close it with insulting comments that are clearly biased. Reguyla (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
psWP has a large amount of history including a RFC, and many other factors that differentiate this matter. There is no similarity in my mind, and that you equate your matter just demonstrates your lack of understanding. Plus, if you want a discussion, then do a RFC (C = Comment = Discussion), do not bring your issue to the stewards. You are barking up the wrong tree.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I see no point in an RFC, it will just be met by the same cynicism and contempt as you are showing here and in your closing statements. Had you simply stated Wrong venue and closed it I wouldn't have thought anything of it and moved on. The fact that you decided it was appropriate to close it with a derogatory statement directed at me only shows that you have no interest in RFC's or discussions about the conduct of ENWP admins. That's their problem apparently and not yours and that attitude is precisely why the problem has gotten so far out of hand on ENWP. Reguyla (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
An RFC is a traditional means to progress and that you don't wish to do so is your choice. that said, it is no reason to continue discussion that was unable to be actioned by stewards, and you had been told that. If you call people liars, etc. and don't wish to follow the process for a resolution, it will of course be seen as an attempt to poorly represent someone's reputation. Don't be surprised if the spade is called a spade. Your conclusions about my views on RFCs are just baseless.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Since we are "calling a spade a spade" as you put it, my decision to call them a lier was based on facts and if you had bothered to actually read my ban review, which clearly you did not, and the verbiage used by them you would have see that too, its quite clearly visible and there is a big difference between not editing and no disruption. Additionally, my irritation is not in that you closed it, because I knew that you couldn't just run over and block them even if it was taken seriously, but that you chose to directly attack me in your closing statement for bringing a very serious problem to the Stewards for action thinking that you cared about abusive admin conduct on Wikipedia. It certainly gives the appearance that the close was personal rather than professional. The mere fact that Floquenbeam is allowed to use lies and false statements to support a block that isn't supported by the community and that you would apparently not care about it just makes my statements that Admins on ENWP don't feel like they have to follow the rules and certainly not Floq, all the more true. I would again ask you to please rephrase your closing statement. Reguyla (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) Geeze you spout rubbish and draw conclusions from nothing. enWP has a process to deal with abuse, use it if you have a complaint. That I don't get my knickers in a not about enWP is an allowable response and should not be drawn as a conclusion about a block, about which stewards cannot have any impact. For the record it is an accurate statement that I made at SN, and to me it seems that all you demonstate here is a hypocrisy. You give free criticism but will not take it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because I call an ugly baby ugly rather than lie and say it isn't doesn't mean I am spouting rubbish. Sure there is a sense of hypocrisy to my statements but no more than admins and functionaries on ENWP that defy policy and do whatever they want while blocking non admins for far less. I also have no problem taking fair and accurate criticism but the criticism you offered in that closing statement wasn't any of that. It wasn't even criticism, it was a blatant personal attack. All I am asking for is for you to simply rephrase it so it isn't a personal attack, is that really so much to ask? Reguyla (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Where is the factual error? Where is the personal attack?  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)