User:Phgao/Sandbox3

Using ADBLOCK to remove a specific wikipedia link.

Hello, as I try to revert as much vandalism as possible in the shortest amount of time, I often mistakenly click the stupid 'Edit summary' link when one goes to edit the page, instead of clicking "Save Page" button. Now is there a way using adblock (or any other program) running in firefox or even in the background to block that link, ie make it not clickable? Phgao 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can do that with adblock, but I've made Greasemonkey scripts for similar purposes. -- JSBillings 10:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You can also edit your monobook.css to hide that link by doing the following:

• go to User:Phgao/monobook.css
• add the line #minoredit_helplink {display: none;}

Rawling4851 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Sorry, if you don't use the monobook skin, you'll have to edit your CSS for whatever skin it is you use. Rawling4851 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You may want to familiarize yourself with the access keys on Wikipedia. I have found that they greatly increase the speed of editing and navigation. For instance, saving a page is just access key 's'. I find the default key combination in Firefox slightly annoying, so I changed (in about:config) ui.key.contentAccess to 4 so that Alt+key was the combination instead of the default 5 (Shift+Alt+key). --Pekaje 11:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sweet tips! I'll look into them. Phgao 08:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

MarSch

Final: (2/20/1); Ended 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Closed early in accordance with WP:SNOW. Acalamari 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

MarSch (talk · contribs) - This is my second self-nom. I filed my first one in May 2005: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MarSch. As before, the primary reason for doing this is that I've been annoyed that I lack privileges needed to fix certain things, such as doing non-trivial page moves. In the past I have done new-page-patrol and I have been involved with templates-for-deletion for a while. My content-edits are mostly in the areas of maths, computer science and physics. MarSch 11:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: A little of everything as I encounter things that need doing.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am currently the most pleased I think with how Manifold turned out, although my edits to that page are all in 2005, I think I had a lot to do with making the article more complete. More recently my edits have been more dispersed and there is no single article that stands out in my mind. For instance, I added/edited articles to make sure major Scheme implementations and important books about Lisp had at least a stub.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have been in a few situations where I disagreed with the direction an article was going, Manifold comes to mind again. I have always tried to reason with my collaborators to convince them or to find a way to cooperate and if I was not succesful I tried to find something else to work on. I will continue to do so in the future.

General comments

• See MarSch's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/MarSch
• Requests for adminship/MarSch 2

• Links for MarSch: MarSch (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MarSch before commenting.

Discussion

• I suggest withdrawal. This has no chance, at 14% support. Note WP:SNOW. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  I raised this issue earlier today on IRC, and was told not to, since there were 2 supports (and 6 opposes). Perhaps someone will reconsider that now though. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  The candidate does not appear to have been on Wikipedia since yesterday afternoon (server time). I would think it only fair that they at least get the opportunity to provide some input or feedback aginst the opposers concerns. Pedro |  Chat  08:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you Pedro, I wasn't really sure if a response to your and others' concerns would be appreciated. Some people seem to object to my discussing on my talk page the disappearing of some of my own edits to my user page by an admin (presumably executed by User:Netsnipe) who informed me of this also on my talk page. It is not clear to me whether the act of discussing or the place where it took place seems inappropriate to some as it seems clear to me that I had the right to discuss this and the right place to respond to Netsnipe's message on my talk page was also on my talk page, right below it as is usual. Unless discussing something is now an act of disregard for the project and consensus, Shell babelfish?

  So perhaps some other aspect of my behaviour is the object of the concern (at least for some), though since Walton^One, who isn't even opposing, seems to have been the most explicit you'll have to excuse me if I address the wrong concern. To the best of my knowledge there was never any official decree by Wikipedia management or Jimbo Wales to disappear from Wikipedia all mention of the number in question and as such I still think there were no grounds for breaking WP:CENSOR and I felt it as my duty to speak up and I believe I have done so while being WP:CIVIL and while not disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. All I did was discuss the matter. I am now using Image:Free-speech-flag.svg and some silly story which seems to be an acceptable compromise.

  Finally I would like to mention that the AACS encryption key controversy page now contains the number and also there is now a comment that says:

Before editing this article or commenting on this article's talk page please read the

Electronic Frontier Foundation's legal primer on this issue:
* http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005229.php

An essay on the AACS key on Wikipedia:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Keyspam

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE KEY
Consensus was reached via this article's talk page to post the key in the article.
If you think this is wrong, there is an on-going discussion.  
Consensus CAN change, but it should be done so through discussion.
DO NOT remove the key and start/continue an edit war

• Make of that what you will. --MarSch 12:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you MarSch, for taking the time and trouble to explain further the issue I raised. To be clear, the rights and wrongs of having the key on Wikipedia are neither here nor there with respect to this RfA. What concerned me was the "tone" of the postings within the thread itself. WJBScribe has summed up nicely how I feel (below). Specifically your first reponse of " Please don't be (a vigilante)/(judge, jury and executioner) of your own doubt-inclusive fear-enhanced DMCA/EUCD. Don't be part of the problem.". That is not the attitude of someone I could entrust with a block button. Other opposers no doubt have their own take on what the issue is, but I'd be willing to bet that it's not so much your disagreement with policy but the way that you disagreed that is the bigger problem. Best. Pedro |  Chat  13:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you for that clarification. I feel strongly about the issue and my strong reaction was based on the fact that User:Netsnipe did not ask me to remove the key or remove the key himself, but instead used some special power to disappear my edits. While my reaction was one of strong disagreement I do not think I crossed WP:CIVIL.

  Your concerns about block buttons are unfounded. If anything, the whole issue should instead have convinced you of my intense distaste of abuse of (administrator) power. Do you really think I would want to do similarly to anyone else? --MarSch 14:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. I have seen this editor's work over a period of years (we work in the same area) and I remember the discussions we had over manifold. I'm confident that MarSch will use the extra tools to the advantage of Wikipedia and thus I gladly support the request. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. I don't know the background to all this encryption key stuff, but looking at the article AACS encryption key controversy, it looks like the number he published on his userpage is exactly the same as that already quoted in the lead section of the article. Although I know next to nothing about this, it's a mystery to me how publishing it on his userpage could cause more legal trouble for Wikipedia than publishing it in an article. As such, it doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to oppose an otherwise adequate candidate. Walton^One 16:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not withstanding your long standing (allthough sporadic) contributions you have virtually no input in admin areas such as WP:XFD, WP:AIV etc. Mostly though this discussion on your talk page is deeply worrying. I can't trust you with block or protection buttons after looking at the ramifications of that. Sorry. Pedro |  Chat  13:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose The discussion Pedro mentions is also troublesome to me. It does not show a willingness to build concensus or good conflict resolution skills. --Fabrictramp 14:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per the discussion that Pedro brought up. The proper place for the discussion of the censored 16-digit hexadecimal number is AACS encryption key controversy, not your user page. It's one thing to protest censorship, but when it could cause legal trouble for Wikipedia, it's not worth proving the point. That's the same reason we don't allow fair-use images on user pages. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Pedro, as the discussion shows a lack of flexibility and misunderstanding of the issues involved; how can we be sure that candidate won't take advantage of admin tools to support his (proven wrong in the referenced discussion) points of view? plus, candidate should not seek the mop as a solution to being "annoyed" at the lack of "privileges". Roadmr (t|c) 16:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose per all the above reasons. I suggest you try again after a few months. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong Oppose per Pedro and all others above. --Ben^chat 19:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose per concerns over the discussion Pedro pointed out which show a misunderstanding of key policies, a lack of understanding the appropriate use of userspace and disregard for the project and consensus. Also your userpage appears to have always been nothing more than a point (and a fair-use image). Shell ^babelfish 22:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per the candidates obvious unfamiliarity with the position and its duties. VanTucky ^Talk 23:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per the userpage discussion. Daniel 00:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Pedro. Jmlk17 00:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose as above. I would consider supporting you in future if you showed an understanding of the concerns raised during the key controversy. Also, I would like to see more contribution in general (over the last four months, you've averaged somewhere around 40 edits per month). Sarah 03:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per the discussion that Pedro brought up. KTC 04:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Strong oppose. The candidate's conduct during the encryption key controversy showed that he did not have the project's best interests at heart. Someone who cannot distinguish between censorship and a refusal to allow Wikipedia to be used as a medium to further software piracy is fundamentally unsuitably to be an administrator. His actions were disruptive, aggressive and showed a complete misunderstanding of the underlying law and policy, never mind a lack of common sense. WjBscribe 11:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    The primary purpose of having an AACS decryption key is being able to play your DVDs using a free software player on a free operating system such as GNU/Linux. So if you ever want to able to play DVDs on your Ubuntu installation you should be happy that some people uncovered this key. Even on Windows you might want to do something other than what most players allow (they may only allow playback), such as re-encoding your DVD so that it takes less space, or using some small part of the movie for creative purposes (making your own movie/sketch/commercial/spoof). On the contrary this key does not aid copyright infringement at all, as encrypted data is not any harder to copy than is any other data. --MarSch 08:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

14. Oppose - no particular reasons for wanting to be an admin and concerns about policy understanding. The answers to the questions and the fairly low edit rate bother me too. Euryalus 12:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose User would do well with reading up on admin requirements and familiarise themselves more with the process of the adminship process. Would consider supporting next time, if such concerns are addressed. Phgao 15:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose I dislike opposing over single incidents, but admins need to know how free speech and censorship applies on Wikipedia. If the whole First Amendment applied to Wikipedia, our policies would be unconstitutional and there would be very little need for admins. Its one thing complaining about people removing stuff from your userspace, but complaints should be grounded in policy, not claiming that your free speech is being infringed upon. Mr.Z-man 20:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    The policy is WP:CENSOR and it did come up. Also I'm sure you are aware that you don't go messing with another user's Userpage without a very good reason. This is also policy Wikipedia:User page. The fact that the key is now back in the articles where it belongs shows that that very good reason was not there. --MarSch 08:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    Content on user pages that is meant to illustrate a point may be removed on sight. Removing it isn't "censorship" (if we wanted to censor the key, we wouldn't include the exact string in an article). I won't oppose for this one incident because it happened several months ago, but the fact that you still believe that the content was an appropriate use of userspace deeply troubles me. Melsaran (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    I didn't put it on my user page to prove any point though, but even that would have been okay as doing this on my own user page does hardly disrupt the wiki. The fact is that the software that Wikipedia runs on was at the time changed to check for this number such that it was impossible to save some pages that obviously contained the number. I used my user page to investigate exactly what the software was checking for. Unfortunately as these edits were disappeared I cannot prove what happened and I also don't know if there is any evidence that I could find for the software change. The fact is that at the time the discussion happened on my user page this number was actively being censored. I am very happy that this is no longer the case, but you can hardly use that as an argument to deny censorship ever happened. I am also confused by some of your other arguments. You're saying the number is only appropriate on a few particular articles and if some silly user wants to put it on his user page that is not okay? Just like it is not okay to put snippets of other articles on your user page?--MarSch 09:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    Then why did you put it on your user page? To test the software? That's hard to believe, particularly because you still have a similar section (about illegal numbers) on your user page right now. Melsaran (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    I give you [1] which I was doing at the same time you were composing this question. --MarSch 09:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

17. Oppose per above. The answers to the questions don't show what administrative tasks that you are going to be involved with. Low edit rate also. I suggest a withdrawal, and more experience needed. Miranda 21:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Strong Oppose. 11 edits in the past year? •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    please check your facts, I have over 1000 edits this past year.--MarSch 08:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    11 edits in project namespace, yes. Melsaran (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

19. Oppose. Not active enough for my taste, need a few hundred edits per month to meet my criteria. Based on current consensus, I'd recommend withdrawing per WP:SNOW. Useight 22:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Essentially an inactive, single-purpose account. Sorry. Bearian 22:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    please check your facts, I have just shy of 8000 edits on my name, all with the single purpose of improving the wiki, yes.--MarSch 08:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm not so sure. You look like a good content contributor with a lot of experience, but you have only 11 contributions in the past year (not counting this RFA). Melsaran (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   Melsaran - did you mean last month ? Candidate has made 1,121 contributions so far this year based on Interiots tool. Pedro |  Chat  13:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   Oops, no, I meant contributions to the project namespace. :) Melsaran (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.