Hi. I can't help wondering why your user name is "Deus ex Machina", but it appears in your sig as "Deus ex Macina". It's none of my business, but I am intrigued. Cheers -- JackofOz11:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was going for a general Latin effect, considering there's no "ch" in Latin.. I dunno, I might be wrong about that, I'm no expert. Glad to see you're intrigued though, lol. ^_^ DEVS EX MACINApray18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember.. considering I'm only 20, I'd have had to be a kid, so no I don't think I'm the person you're looking for. Sorry. Though Dane is an uncommon name, Brisbane isn't that small, either! And I enabled my email now too, thanks for reminding me. DEVS EX MACINApray23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you can stop that from happening in the first place. Normally reasonable people occasionally make bad calls. What you can do is set things up so that errors like that are rare and self-correcting. Remember that within 75 minutes I recognized the error and reversed the block with apologies, then promptly pledged improvements to prevent a similar mistake from happening again. Processes at Wikipedia are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and publication of that report two days after I'd addressed the error on my own initiative was about as punitive as Wikipedia ever gets: the mainstream tech press coverage that resulted may do long term harm to my career. Is that really what you'd wish on a volunteer who makes a good faith error after two years' productive service to the site? DurovaCharge!07:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the fact that you made an error, it's the thinking that led to such an error that is the problem. The criteria you used to determine !! was in any way a harmful account could be applied to any other account on Wikipedia given a bit of leverage, and it is that mentality that is harmful to the encyclopedia. I know you made an error and it perhaps harmed you more than it should have had, but the backlash shouldn't have been about you, it should have been about this sort of.. overly punitive thinking. I know talking tough about cracking down on trolls and SPAs is popular talk, as is - if you will forgive the analogy here, but I think it's relevant - talking tough about eliminating terrorists, but it's the methods and the mindset we must keep an eye on. I don't wish harm on you. I wish harm on the thinking that led you to that erroneous conclusion, and would have led you to more in the future had no-one picked up on it.
Giano's leaking of the correspondence was the precipitating factor, not any notification to any higher body or the mailing list itself. Had we not known the exact contents, we would have merely dismissed it as a bad block, but it wasn't JUST a bad block, it was a bad conclusion, a bad system, a bad sleuth, not necessarily entirely your fault. You were, though, the most visible target, and it could have been handled better by everyone involved. However, Giano's release was not the problem, and any policy which seeks to disable this kind of whistleblowing is harmful to the encyclopedia and our goals. DEVS EX MACINApray10:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that my reasoning behind that block was seriously flawed. That particular instance was quite different from the kind of investigation I normally run. Normally I depend on smoking guns, not circumstantial evidence, and within the first two hours I saw the whole chain of logical errors that had led me there. I promptly pledged improvements that would have stopped the same mistake from happening again. In other words, the lesson that you say justified Giano's action was something I had already both learned and articulated to the community on my own initiative.
What you got from seeing that particular report was an accurate view of small piece of information very much out of context. Get 99 blocks right and one wrong, and suddenly I'm "a bad sleuth". Post one out-of-character message to an e-mail list about cyberstalking, and a meme takes on a life of its own about what that list was supposedly doing and what it was about. One of your statements is absolutely on target, although probably in a different sense from what you intend. I've been waiting for things to calm down enough that rational discussion can become possible. DurovaCharge!18:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article formerly known as VP:Admin Abuse is back up for a MfD, in spite of its new title and greatly expanded sections highlighting great admins. (The MfD is believed to be a veiled personal attack.) The new page is WP:What Were They Thinking? (or simply WP:WWTT). The deletion question is here. Please visit and voice your support or, if your opinion has changed, opposition to this article. As you'll recall, it was a UNANIMOUS KEEP the first time around. Thank you for your time. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from edit-warring on the lead. Your comments in edit summaries are hardly helping, either - we've been talking about this for a few days already, so your action in restoring the contested version again, and asking people to comment on the talk page without participating in the ongoing discussion yourself is not particularly impressive.
I've indicated why both versions are unsuitable; why don't you help by finding a wording that addresses the concerns raised? Put it up in the discussion forum and we can work from there. Until we get a new consensus, it's best IMHO to keep the version that has survived for a while. But we will change it. --Pete (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point about me not participating in the discussion. However, I don't think you have satisfactorily explained why the changes to the lead should not be made, apart from vague concerns - and, if I may be frank, your own personal opinion. The sources are adequate and the facts undeniable. DEVS EX MACINApray12:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm Ral315, editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost. It appears that you have not edited in at least a few months. To avoid spamming your talk page any further, should you be on leave, your name has been removed from the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to continue receiving the Signpost on your talk page, please leave a note on my talk page to that effect, and I will restore your name, and keep you on the list indefinitely. Ral315 (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar.
This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past.
It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
