Ah, well im using Twinkle so im still getting used to it. It said "Creation of previously deleted material" and it looked like it fit so i used that one. I was trying to use the cat that was most relevant. Sorry for the confusion, Thanks for the advice. Cheers.
AnnaJGrant (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not received as yet. I'm likely to be off-line for a few hours now, but will come back to you. If not tonight then by 08:00 tomorrow (WP time) Pedro : Chat 17:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resent again to the other e-mail address. Geez, I have no idea why it doesn't want to get to you. If you don't get it this time, I'll send it through Wikipedia. D.M.N. (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Pedro, just wanted to let you know I was interested in co-noming Wisdom when the time comes around for you to nominate him. If you would not mind letting me know when you do so as not to miss it? Thanks, Tiptoetytalk00:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too kind. I think firstly I've only been an admin for seven months and secondly I probably need to establish some trust between key members of our community that has been lost. And thirdly, the current team seem to be doing a grand job, so one could question if there is "need" for another 'crat. Again, thanks for dropping by with that comment though - it means a lot! Pedro : Chat 13:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carrot vs Onion
You were upset about something - I forget the exact context - one of the AFDs. Anyway, I made a mental note to give you a link to a story which speaks to our different roles here. It amuses me and may entertain you. FWIW it can be read at:
Since I have clearly upset you I've asked for some others to take a look at this. The thread is at WP:AN[1]
User Page
Hi, Pedro. I just noticed that on 23 January you deleted my user page, citing WP:CSD#G11 ("Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.")
Since a user page is not an article, I checked [2] for appropriate user page info. It says "In addition to the author's username, a user page might include some of the following details:
* Occupation
* Interests
* Web site URL"
Based on this information, I do not understand why my user page was deleted. My User Page said only that my occupation is Manager of Information Services at the Education and Research Institute -- a nonprofit organization that hosts a free online archive of scanned United States government (public domain) documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act -- and provided the organization's Web site URL. (The Web site is free, and does not require anything, install anything, or sell anything.)
Oh! Do-able, but I'd need to make some arrangements to cover an obligation I normally have on a Sunday. Will also need to check trains. Cheers for the heads-up. Pedro : Chat 15:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I will. I'd be delighted to. But I'm a bit on the hard side of things. I'm prepared to sacrifice wiki-friendship for the good of Wikipedia. So If you're prepared for my brutal honesty then yes. Anything to help better the work, and there is no question you have been a valued contibutor so far. Pedro : Chat 19:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm just reviewing some other stuff on WP at the moment (per this talk page and my watchlist) but will be delighted to sort out a sub-page for you. It may not be today however, so apologies. Pedro : Chat 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response, he proded the article Corruption in India which I created without informing the primary contributor [5]. NPOV disputes should be solved by editing, not by deletion. This was a WP:POINT prod by this user.
Now there is a discussion about the article Jonathan Wheeldon in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wheeldon. WP:ATHLETE says athelets will be notable if "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)". Which is not the case of Jonathan Wheeldon. While hovering AfDs, I voted delete in the article for failing WP:ATHLETE. In response he made this comment [6].
I have reviewed both AFD's (one now closed at this time). I belive that there are issues in terms of the way User:Firefly322 makes his comments, but I do not totally see any WP:POINT issues - making a point is different from making a point with a link to policy. Given my previous disagreements with Firefly I'm not sure I can add any value to the WP:AN conversation without inflaming it. I do feel that you have conducted yourself impecably here, and that Firefly has not, but I also feel that any comments by me will not help our overall goal (writing and giving away a quality encyclopedia to our readership) and will only cause more upset. I'm sorry not to help further, and trust you understand that I must be utterly impartial here given my previous less than positive interaction with Firefly. Pedro : Chat 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
87.112.86.10
I've left a couple of messages, that their response to the first was to past entire policy pages into my talk page (rather than a link) doesn't make me hopeful. Particularly when that policy doesn't actually support their actions. They seem to have gone quiet for now though, so fingers crossed. --BrucePodger (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bruce. Apologies but I'm about to go off-line. A brief review reveals nothing totally out of line by the IP, but if you need further input hit me up here, or ask at WP:AN. Hoefully all will be well Pedro : Chat 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
helloterran
I noticed you (mis)deleted the page "anti-cnn", which I believe is not what you thought it was as you said in the deletion log. It is NOT a dedicate page to attack some certain company, nor is it unsourced. It is a page for describing the website www.anti-cnn.com, a site boasting a collection of pictures and video evidences of the obvious and probably deliberately distortion of the recent events in tibet, by some of the most popular news sources. It is aimed at their bias and lies, and hopes to remind viewers worldwide that what they see on some of the "most" global media is far from relative truth. A page linked with that website is anything but ungrounded attack, and I am looking forward to a opportunity to elaborate that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloterran (talk • contribs) 12:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On 7 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wickham Vineyards, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi - this article was recreated, but I chopped it mercilessly and removed the POV and OR - can you have a look and see what you think? (Note that another editor keeps reverting and adding back in OR, though, so check the history). Black Kite13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw it was re-created and it's infinetly better than before. But could quickly de-generate into a massive POV / attack page so it's watchlisted - big time!! Pedro : Chat 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I was the one to PROD, can I go back and add a speedy instead? Because that is what happened in this instance. Wongm (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Pedro. I don't generally revert edits of good, established editors like yourself, but I had stumbled on that Jerry Covington mess yesterday. The guy's been blocked and has been using a bunch of sockpuppets to try and avoid it. This is just the latest. User:Ukexpat has been pulling out his hair over it. There is certainly the establishment of notability, but it's totally COI if we're dealing with Mr. Covington and totally against the rules regardless of who he is. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You da man. :) If I hadn't stumbled onto this hornet's nest the other day, I'd have completely overlooked it...and welcomed the author! Thanks for your understanding. Now that I've become involved, I'm now trying to meditate this mess. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Re:
The speedy tag was added by an experienced user. Speedy tags should not be removed - as stated, they could be contested. I felt that the deletion of the speedy tag by the concerned user was a disrespect to the user who added it, whether it was a mistake or not. Since you disagree too, then I agree with its removal. Thanks. Herunar (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive user
Hi there! Long time no see -- rare to find you on-line at the same time as me. What bad luck for you <grin> since I was looking for a friendly admin to keep an eye on User:74.234.39.218. Simply put, this is the most disruptive user I have ever seen in my life, and I figure someone's going to ban him in the next 20 minutes or so, but due to some interaction I've had with him already, it can't be me. The page he's whingeing about is something that I deleted because he blanked the page and left some nonsense on it about hoaxing. The page's creator asked me to look into it -- I did, and Googled enough information to make me think that the topic is 100% legitimate, so I restored the page. (I've been fooled before, but I think I'm right this time.) Anyway, the IP user will NOT leave this alone, he's determined to have the page removed and everyone to admit that he (I just know no woman would/could be this offensive) is right. I'm at the end of my rope with him, and I'm sure a number of other people are as well. Whatever you feel like doing would be just fine with me, but I think someone should be keeping an eye on this individual for the next few hours, and I'm pretty much going off-line. Thanks for any oversight you care to exercise -- and of course, my best to you and your family! (I'm way too busy these days to spend any time talking about bathrobes, unfortunately.) Accounting4Taste:talk22:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've seen your good example, you have inspired me to deal with another problematic user the same way: User:Cicorp, who got blocked for 21 hours yesterday (not by me). Man, you continue to be a good example to me. Thanks. Accounting4Taste:talk22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to copy/paste this, in case I miss your inevitable RfB: Support, because Pedro rocks. He is more than able to determine consensus at RfA, he is able/willing to help out where needed, and he does so with style and class". . Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer23:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! That was typed with a smile on my face. May be later in the year I think. I feel I could add real value as a 'crat, but I need at least a year of adminship, and also to address some issues where I've irritated some pretty senior editors. Oh, and to get past the end of August due to the arrival of SonOfPedro Mark II or DaughterOfPedro. But maybe after that I might ask for the extra bits. Mind you looking at WP:ADMINSTATS your admin actions are like double mine! Wow! BTW - thanks Keeper! Pedro : Chat 23:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Pedro, I hope you don't mind but I'm using your code on my signature. It really looks nice, so I choose yours. If you don't like that then contact me and I'll remove it :) --Kanonkas : Take Contact 16:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're more than welcome. If you notice my user page, there's a little barnstar there reflecting the fact that you will not be the first using my sig. code!! Happy editing! And Tan - yep you know! Pedro : Chat 19:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that the thread (pertaining to AFD's I assume) is resolved. Keeper is the main man. Listen to him and you won't go wrong. Pedro : Chat 06:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gary, I'd counsel against responding to every oppose, although you are more than entitled to do so. This is a hard call really; on one hand an experienced and dedicated Wikipedian who is very much a benefit to the project. On the other, some serious concerns about one of the most important tools admins get. If your request passes I implore you to go easy. If it fails then you will at least know what you need to work at. I'm sorry I find myself unable to support your request, but would also state that as an editor without the admin tools you are fantastic, and I hope that you do not find the RFA process too brutal and will continue your excellent work whatever the outcome. Pedro : Chat 09:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I decided to just bite the bullet and see where I stand with the community. I will take all of the criticism and make sure I improve my understanding of policy here. My main concern is that if I go for another RFA, then concerns raised at this one will be raised at that one again, and so on. I'm hoping that concerns raised at a future RFA are ones that happened after this RFA. Gary King (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the concerns. They're not hard to fix but it is important they are fixed. Don't be concerned about future RFA issues - three months is a long time on Wikipedia. I failed an RFA, then passed with about 11 weeks diference! You've got a good admin coach. Lean on him to help you and just be less hasty. As I said - everyone respects your work in the mainspace - sort out the project side and you'll be fine. This RFA may end up being simply a learning curve, but that's no bad thing. Pedro : Chat 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, this RFA serves a double purpose as an editor review compressed within a 7 day timespan (although I may ask that the nomination be withdrawed if things get too nasty...) so I will definitely fix the concerns raised. It's been an interesting experience, and at least the next time around I will be much more comfortable with it and know what to expect. Gary King (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'm sad I've had to go as I've enjoyed my time at Wikipedia, but unforeseen circumstances made me realise it was time to move on. Thanks. Paul20070 81.152.149.124 (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Pedro. Thanks for your help. Any chance you could delete the my archive page as well. Deletion appears to have been refused by another admin, but as the the other two pages are gone, it would be great if that one could be deleted too. Thanks again. Paul20070 81.152.149.124 (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. I hope that in the future you will return to help out this noble project. Or at least return as the one thing that is more important here than anything else. Our readers. Pedro : Chat 19:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see why. If a source is not reliable then it's not. If the policy saying that it's not reliable is in error thats not a WP:NPOV issue it's an issue with the understanding or interpretation of the policy. Pedro : Chat 21:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not talking about the actual guideline, I'm talking about this, "Note that in recent years, some groups, such as Answers in Genesis, have created so-called peer-reviewed scientific journals that are not respected or considered reliable by any significant number of mainstream practitioners in the fields they purport to belong to, and hence are not generally to be considered reliable sources for anything beyond the views of the minority positions they cater to." Now, "so-called"? That doesn't sound very neutral to me. BTW, I'm asked on the talk page and all I got was, "Policies and guidelines do not need to be neutral." That doesn't sound right. RC-0722247.5/105:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Don't mind me, Peds). The "so-called" probably isn't the most neutral wording, but policies are supposed to describe common practice, and (hopefully!) common sense. Common sense dictates that these "scientific" journals, aren't. Hence the "so-called". The main issue here is that we shouldn't be citing stuff that clearly isn't regarded as reliable by those in the know, even if it says it is. (ie. we shouldn't trust Bob saying his journal is "teh science!", rather, we should ask others if Bob can be trusted.) At least, that's how I read it (working on music articles you don't get this much). Hope this helps. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the policy, I just have a problem with the example. I wouldn't even have a problem with that if you guys stated the correct info. I don't think we should cite the scientific journals (ie. Creation Magazine), but we shouldn't be putting them down either, now should we? RC-0722247.5/114:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies it wasn't till just now I saw your earlier reply! Very sorry. Okay - I see what you mean - If that statement was in the mainspace it would have a great big "citation needed" or "weasel words" slapped on it. I would think that it could be better worded. The goal here is that "reliable sources" must be just that - reliable. I would also think it would depend on the context they are cited e.g. if our article said "Criticism of findings .... Journal X has critcised this as been inaccurate for reasons Y (cite). However this is generally not considered accurate data by mainstream parties Z (cite)" that would be fine. The overriding point is that just because someone says it's so don't make it so - unless it's trustworthy. Have you tried to get some consensus to change the phrasing? - as I have no idea on how reliable or otherwise Creation Magazine is I can't really comment, but I agree we don't need to put them down without need. Pedro : Chat 15:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think in this instance go to WT:RS rathern than the noticeboard as you are after a wording change not a decision on what is reliable (although the noticebord may help as well). I would think you need consensus to change rather than just doing it. Pedro : Chat 15:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heya Pedro,
Hows everything going? Just wanted to ask do you know what has been the most successful RFA as in the most support votes and no oppose votes. I was just wondering thats all. You know there are so many stats and trivia questions that im interested in, i have found most of them but this one is hidden from me. Do you have any clue? Just wondering thats all.
BTW what tool for reverting vandalism is the best in your mind? What do you normally use? Thanks, keep up the great work. Im always looking at the RFA page for your contributions, i can learn so much from you. I think you deserve to become a bureaucrat one day. You've got my support. Take care Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Hampus Hellekant called me and asked that I had the article deleted. Considering that he is a convicted murderer, I have decided to comply. If speedy deletion is not the way to go, I will have to request Oversight - a tedious procedure! I ask you to reconsider your decision and re-interpret CSD:G7. Jobjörn (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined speedy again. I'm afraid my interpretation of G7 is correct. If you have been contacted by the subject of the article then I would recommmend WP:BLP/N is the correct place to go to. At a read the assertions in the article are cited, and simply a request from the subject to delete it does not guarantee deletion I'm afraid. Pedro : Chat 11:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not simply a request from the subject of an article, it is a convicted murderer that tracked down my home phone number and demanded that I delete the article. Jobjörn (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a serious situation, (and I note your posting to the Village Pump previously). However, I can only urge you to report this to your local authorities. It is not a matter for Wikipedia, in that threats to our editors cannot be met with capitulation. This is, essentialy, an off-wiki matter and whilst I fully understand your anxiety your local police should be the people to report this to. Pedro : Chat 11:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further - you are perfectly entitiled to re-word the article to remove any parts originally created by yourself (or indeed others) but please do not blank it. Pedro : Chat 11:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the authorities have been contacted. Obviously I can not delete anything from the article no matter how much I rephrase it, especially considering that it is so well-sourced. Very well, I have requested oversight, although I expect my request to be declined. After that, however, there is nothing I can do - he will just have to be content with my effort. Plrk (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for appearing unhelpful. I am glad you have contacted the authorities and assure you of my intention to help in anyway I can, provided it is within the guidelines and more importnatly policies of Wikipedia. Pedro : Chat 11:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accidental indef block of IP
I reduced it to 24 hours ... I forgot for a second that it was an IP (a registered user with this edit history would, of course, be blocked indefinitely). Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Pedro, please be more careful in assessing AIV reports in the future. The user in question DID vandalize recently, twice today, in fact, which was what prompted my report in the first place. I provided diffs as well. He has a pageful of final warnings, and a 100%-vandalism edit history (which I hand verified myself before submitting the report). I realize you are intensely busy with admin work, but when you decline a block such as that, I do not believe you are adhering to either the letter OR the spirit of WP:BLOCK. Due to gross inconsistency in the enforcement of policy on AIV, many users now simply no longer bother to report ANY vandal out of resignation that it will simply be ignored. I think the fact that an IP editor can make 48 consecutive vandalism edits (in almost every single month in the last 2 years) without a single report to AIV confirms what I am saying. Bullzeye (Ring for Service)21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you gave the user a final warning for vandalism and then reported them. I see no vandalism or activity after your warning. I'd advise you to be more careful in challenging the judgment of another user with admonishments. Wisdom89(T / C)21:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bullzeye, please refer to the WP:AIV page that states, quite clearly, The vandal must be active now, and have vandalised after sufficient recent warnings to stop. You reported at 20:32 [7] when the IP last vandalised at 18:29 per Special:Contributions/71.39.251.35. That is not even close to now - it's 2 hours. I suggest you refer to Wikipedia:BLOCK#Duration_of_blocks that points out blocks are preventative, not punative. Your report, whilst in good faith, was totally outside of our current guidelines on blocking, particularly as your indepth analysis seemed to be pushing for a long term or indefinate block, which will not happen to an IP address. I'm sorry if you feel AIV does not live up to expectations, but for what it's worth the current block I personally find to be a bad choice by the administrator that made it, and not in the spirit of prevention. However, it is up to them, and I will not wheel war. But I would ask you actually review policy and procedure properly before quoting it inacuratley to me. Sorry. Pedro : Chat 21:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to speak to this as the blocking admin.
While the vandalism was not, indeed, ongoing, the report made it clear that all the edits from the account had been vandalism, and that two such edits had occurred today. I don't think we should automatically dismiss all AIV reports that don't meet the standards if the greater good of Wikipedia would be served by taking some action against the user reported. There has never been any sign that this IP has been used for any productive editing. I have seen other admins block users who have a continual pattern of going to the edge and then stopping (much as we block people for 3RR violations who continually make those three reverts and then wait 24 hours before doing them again). Perhaps they would not have vandalized again during that time anyway, but this way they'll know their activities will result in blocks. Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly - especially since we're talking about an anonymous IP addy. No one can say for sure if it's static or dynamic anyway. Administrators should not block preemptively. Ever.And especially not when a user isn't active. Wisdom89(T / C)21:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting Daniel. I don't disagree that the IP has made no productive edits, and you are correct that we should not slavishly follow guidelines (e.g. sufficent warnings) before blocking. But in this case the IP appears to turn up intermitently, make a couple of bad edits and go away. A block may well serve the purpose of making them aware they can be stopped. Equally, given the time since last edit, the actual person behind the IP has already probably switched of their PC and gone elsewhere. A block warning may make them think twice - equally it may make them react more negatively when unblocked. I am unconvinced here that the block prevents any damage, but it may well be as you assert that they will desist for "fear" of blocking again. Let us hope so. I personally would have gone for WP:RBI without the B bit, but it is your perogative to act otherwise, and although I disagree I respect your firmer line on this. Pedro : Chat 21:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This edit I'm afraid does not inspire confidence that you need my assistance. If you know Raul654 I suggest you engage in dialogue with him to discuss your concerns. Pedro : Chat 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3RR Violation
I need some help here. Two users seem to be edit warring. I have to get offline now, but if you could check my contribs and talk page, you should be able to figure it out. Thanks and happy editing. If you need something else, drop me a line on my talk page, considering you wont get an (edit conflict) lol :) Dustispeak and be heard!22:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya. I agree that the users actions have been less than helpful recently. However you have warned them appropriatley and one hopes they will realise there errors. The report is stale, because WP:AIV is for vandals that are active now per the wording - and this editor had not edited for some time. Now really means right now - i.e. they are currently active. A block now would seem to be punitive and not preventative of damage. Clearly if they next log in and carry on refactoring talk pages after your warning they will be blocked to stop them. But I'm personally not a big fan of blocking when the "vandal" is no longer active unless the account is clearly vandalism only. This account has made some positive contributions, and hopefully a warning will suffice. Hope that clarifies my decision. Pedro : Chat 10:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove my reporting of this vandal without leaving a warning on the user's talk page? this vandal and his buddy exist for one reason. to try to get their name onto the Steve Bedrosian article. If you check their history, you will see that they have contributed nothing else to WP at all. They are merely puppets and should be blocked. You could have at least left a warning on their talk page. EraserGirl (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation, however I am still confused at how merely removing my comment actually did anything but negate my involvement. I didn't expect you to block anyone at that stage, but leaving another warning would have at least acknowledged the infraction. EraserGirl (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically you have confused me more. I posted where I was told to. That was where I had posted before and where it was dealt with before. No one told me that I was wrong before, just you. One thing about WP is that everyone has their own opinion on how to do things. I will just continue to fix it whenever these two vandals pop their heads up again and I won't bother reporting it again. EraserGirl (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RfA
Thanks for your kind words in my RfA. Regretfully I had to withdraw my application as per the opposers comments, although it looked like towards the end I may have succeeded given enough time. Anyway, thanks again and I look forward to hearing from you with my next RfA application. Regards, CycloneNimrodtalk?22:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I appreciate the fact that admin coaching may have their own protocols for running the scheme but I was wondering of the likelihood of being coached by you? I ask this only because I've seen your coaching towards other users on your user page and I was impressed by how you did it. Regards, CycloneNimrodtalk?22:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I appreciate all those things and i'm aware I may well be a long way off but you have to start somewhere! My only reasoning for wanting to become an administrator is to help make it easy for myself and others to contribute effectively to Wikipedia. I'd like to continue with the admin coaching when you have the time to do it :) Regards, CycloneNimrodtalk?09:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. That's fine. I'll set up a coaching page. Just to make you aware I am generally inactive (or very low levels of activity) at the weekend - although I do go on almost every day. My key time is 08:00 - 16:00 UTC weekdays. Pedro : Chat 09:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you recently blocked User:66.103.50.157. Today I discovered that he/she had vandalised yet another page. Judging by the amount of vandalism warnings on his/her talk page, is there any way of getting this person permanently blocked? Howie☎13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not. We don't block IP's indefinately, as they could be reallocated to another user by their Internet Service Provider. But they will get longer and longer blocks if they continue to vandalise. Pedro : Chat 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RfA?
I had someone offer to nominate me for admin, and I was wondering what you thought of my chances of succeeding. My reason for asking this is that I don't want to waste the community's time with a dead-on-arrival RfA and possibly take a blow to my wikimood. I greatly appreciate your advice on this and I await your response. Thanks. Thingg⊕⊗19:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your kind words. I have seen your !votes over at WP:RfA quite a bit and I have to say that especially your opposes have always impressed me with how encouraging they are to the candidate. So far, the responses from the people I have queried about my RfA prospects have all been positive, so I have accepted User:Xenocidic's nomination. (He's not online right now, so it may be a little bit before the nomination is put up on WP:RfA) Again, thank you so much for your support and advice. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗12:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of "sorting out", last night I actually wrote out a rough draft of answers to those wonderful main questions. : ) Wisdom89(T / C)13:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the comment you left on VanTucky's RfA, and all I can say is...your signature is spreading! Here's one that, while it's not the same as yours, it's a descendant! WP:PEDRO is becoming policy, and the dominant one at that! :) Acalamari : Chat 21:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the one in the mentioned RfA, I have seen Pedro's signature or descendants like mine on I believe six users. Several blues on, my red one and one other red one, a green one, and Pewwer42's as you pointed out. Whenever I find the creative energy, I think I am going to go ahead and jump off the bandwagon. ;) SorryGuy Talk 21:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering when the Pedro Cabal was coming, but if WP:PEDRO rules, then the Cabal would be redundant anyway, and everyone would have to have Pedro's signature. :) Acalamari21:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs some serious help. Everybody seems more interested in ID vs. Darwinism that talking about the actual article. Any help would be appreciated; especially on this post. RC-0722247.5/122:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added mine now. Hopefully it'll go someway to expressing our positive thoughts regarding Wisdom to the community. A true candidate. Rudget18:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, didn't expect all of that. Pedro, you are a quick one. The one night when I don't have access to a computer, the page is created and I can't transclude : ). Ah well!. The both of you, thanks so much for your kind words. Very thoughtful! Wisdom89(T / C)20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[8] You are welcome, it was getting out of hand. I asked around on IRC to find that there was a lot of opposition to more than three co-noms. Tiptoetytalk15:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COI?
Would it be a conflict of interest to support Wisdom's RfA since he supported mine? I'd really like to support him, but I don't want to do something I'm not supposed to do. Thanks for the help. Thingg⊕⊗20:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Malleus. But it would not be a conflict if you believe he is a good candidate. Don't feel you shouldn't carry on as normal, just because you are also running. Pedro : Chat 21:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The RfA
Well, it isn't going as well as I had hoped, but, that's ok. It's trust. Frankly speaking, this "double standard" business and references to my RfA voting are beyond strange to me. In fact, I'll flat out say that I have never manifested such a behavior. I feel there are now pile on opposes to the point where there is a slim chance for success. If there is a small flurry between now and the end of the day, in the same vein, I'm going to be forced to withdraw prematurely methinks. Anyway, must get to work, cheers! Wisdom89(T / C)12:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not going swimingly. However I would feel boosted by the strong supports, and, as have you stated, learn from all comments. It is regretable that it s going down hill, but one of those things. Should you withdraw / should you run it to the end and it not pass I trust and hope that your enthusiasm for Wikipedia will remain undimmed. I know RFA can be pretty brutal, but I also believe you are tough enough to get through it, whatever the outcome - I'd not have nominated otherwise. Pedro : Chat 13:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your head up, Wisdom. It's far from over. You've seen these things swing before - it could very well swing back. I'm keeping the candlelight vigil going ;-) Tan | 3915:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kind and thoughtful words indeed from Tan. owever I believe that the RFA will not pass. I accept a considerable amount of responsibility for this, as your admin coach, and offer my sincere apologies that I have clearly not covered all the bases in "mentorship". Please do not be despondent. Pedro : Chat 16:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, I hold you in the highest regard. Your offer to coach me was thoughtful, delightful and amiable. There was no way in hell I was gonna pass up that opportunity. There is no blame to go around for a failed or rough RfA. In fact, I take exception to some of the opposes whereby I am referred to as a manufactured RfA applicant. It's as much a slight to you as it is to me. I am my own person, and no where do I see how you told me how to act or what to say at RfA. Tan, your kind words are also appreciated. I will continue to learn from mistakes and contribute to this encyclopedia for as long as it remains open to the public. I'm that passionate about it. I'm disconcerted at the moment, but I'm also resilient. I have a barnstar for that : ) Wisdom89(T / C)17:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more I read the oppose !votes, the more despondent I am becoming, not because the RfA is going to fail (which I am certain it will), but because there are some outrageously cynical comments about my work/behavior. Sigh. I hate to say it, but, considering my personal experience here, and in light of other editors I've seen (as well as the numerous WT:RFA discussions), I feel that the RfA process is horribly misguided. Scrutiny is one thing, but, a few diffs (one 3 months ago!) from rspeer and it spirals downhill with "per user"? Users don't like my RfA !voting? I'm manufactured? I was told what to say? And the latest oppose..my answer to question six is scripted. Yikes...Sorry, but the process is a fishing expedition. Talk about Wikistress. Wisdom89(T / C)20:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't appear to think the the RfA process was "horribly misguided" only a few days ago though, so what's changed? Apart from you being on the receiving end of it, of course. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's cool, yeah I'm on the receiving end now : ) That's certainly new. However, I have expressed my wariness of the process in the past on WT:RFA. Wisdom89(T / C)20:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposes hurt. I'm not quite sure how Miranda feels your response to be "scripted" or her interpretation of that word. However Miranda is a long, long term editor who I do respect a lot, and if she feels that way I would recommend an exploration of her thoughts (though possibly away from the RFA). I honestly empathise with how crushing each oppose feels - it's like you're not valued or wanted. Clealry, from the strength of the supports, you are. I'm of the absolute opinion that (almost) all editors who comment at RFA do so with the best intentions and with sincerity. You should be proud of the (mainly removed!) per-transclusion support and the fact that many editors have taken time to voice their opinion. I can only offer my counsel that if this RFA does not pass then you still walk away head held high, and will still be, as ever, a respected editor of this project. Easy words, but genuinely meant. Pedro : Chat 20:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey dude, they sure do. Some of these in particular too. Regardless, I am going to transclude my withdraw statement in a few moments and bid everyone a farewell (there, not Wikipedia). I just want to say thanks again, and I will continue to defer to you for help. As of right now, I am fairly certain I will not be going for the mop again. I'm not putting myself through it. Cheers dude! And I am truly grateful. Wisdom89(T / C)23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
incivility
Yes, I completely understand that I am supposed to be on a wikibreak. But, I got an e-mail telling me that I was being refered to as "ignorant" and I should "educate yourself before trying to spread this kind of ignorance farther." Now, I'm no expert on the civility laws, but wouldn't being refered to as "ignorant" be a violation of those laws? BTW, the discussion is found here. I'm going to go back to my Wikibreak, and pray that God will soften his heart and that I won't recieve any more e-mails like that one. RC-0722247.5/116:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will review the diff, but a simple solution is to delete the e-mail. I'm generally not convinced that Wikipedia matters should be discussed of wiki unless there are pressing needs of privacy. Pedro : Chat 17:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood me. I'm supposed to be on a WikiBreak, and so a user knowing that e-mailed me saying that User:Filll was calling me "ignorant". Hope that clears things up! BTW, I'll check your talk page periodically to see if you replied. RC-0722247.5/118:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RC. Yep - some plain talking advice, I'm afraid. Let it go. Because some web-site (ie. Wikipedia) contextualises things as an attack does not, for certain, mean that it is. And even if it is, the thing to do is to rise above it. As an admin daily abuse via talk page and e-mail is all part of the "job". I believe you are a Bible reader. I'm not. However I'd ask you to consider turning the other cheek. You do not need to respond to incivility, and it makes you stronger to ignore it or handle it whilst retaining your own politness and courtesy. Pedro : Chat 19:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Pedro! Could I get your help over here? I figure it might be quicker to ping you directly... if you think I should go to a project page or something... I'm open to suggestion. I want to make sure that I get some help this person. -- Swerdnaneb22:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
man y do u hate me? point out all my faults. so racist :( --Thfrang 10:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thfrang (talk • contribs)
lol soz bro i didnt mean it dat way, i meant it as a joke, but i guess it didnt come across dat way and i apologize. pls help me become a better wiki dude so i can one day become admin because i think i have potential. gimme advice if possibleh! ciao--Thfrang 10:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thfrang (talk • contribs)
omg i sed i wos sorry, didnt think anyone would take it soooooooooooo seriously. wat do you want me to do for you to forgive me, kiss your feet? kill myself? god, i thought a part of wikilove is forgiveness.--Thfrang 11:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thfrang (talk • contribs)
One does one's best! I a bit under the weather at the momment, so I'm tucked up under a duvet editing WP sporadically. (man flu!) Hence I had leisure to craft that bit of input.... Now if only I can persuade User:Wife Of Pedro that a large Scotch would be a good idea my night would be complete! Pedro : Chat 18:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up dude, you may want to visit the above page and list your two new recruits that you've begun coaching. I just remembered to removed myself just now. Lata! Wisdom89(T / C)19:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers buddy. I've got to tidy that all up and sort a load of things out for the guys, one the plague departs. 19:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
My Rfa
Thank You for supporting me! Sorry for the late message as I hadn't realized someone had supported me! Thanks for the advice. I know that I edit my sub pages more than real articles! Anyway thank you for the moral support and I hope that we can work together in the future. JayJ47 (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: User:Pageview bot (redundant pages}
You can try, but myself and MZMcBride are running clones of the same adminbot in different directions already. Thanks for the offer, but I think we've got this covered. :-) east.718at 20:55, April 23, 2008
Thank spam
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
I think it's fixed now. thanks for the heads up (I can never decide if the heads in heads up needs an apostrophe...) VanTucky22:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good point, I should have just placed another warning on the user's talk page, as you did. However I did want to get quick attention to the matter, as it was obvious vandalism on multiple WP:BLP articles. Thank you for dealing with it and for adding the final warning to the user's talk page. Cirt (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. At the moment I am mostly focused on working on increasing quality of articles to WP:DYK, WP:GA, and eventually WP:FA status, as well as work on WP:FPORTs, and I am just not that interested at the present time. Cirt (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doug. Sigh! I'd recommend you take it to the team at WP:BLP/N as you'll find some editors/admins there who will be crash hot on BLP issues. My response was to purge the text, but if it's just going to re-appear than it's better to get some more eyes on it. Pedro : Chat 08:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will if I find time, I've got a couple of mergers I want to get going first and some other work adding references to some pages. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction though.Doug Weller (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed to removed the disputes with out leaving any discussion. I added references, I added relevance and importance to the workstation and minicomputer industries in the 1980. I added categories. You left nothing behind, just removed the dispute. Did you look and see if this page had been added before? Some feedback would be nice.Robert.harker (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my confusion. I will admit that I am a Wikipedia newbie and one of my other pages was deleted with out comment even after I had tried to fix its defects, relevance and references. Will some one come along and
look at the improvements? Do you have any idea of how long this might take? Thanks for the helpRobert.harker (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some minor bits to it as well. In answer, well it's a wiki! So anyone can turn up and alter it at any time. There's no set thing where someone will come along and ammend or alter any given article, they just improve as time goes by (well that's the idea!) Pedro : Chat 11:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
– Sheer patience, If I had a barnstar/Cookie you could have it
Hi you did say that I could always knock you up if I needed advice. Until yesterday I wasn't aware that User rights logs were visible. I'm not sure if I ever cared to look. I'm a Crat on Wikia and stuff like that is visible on all user logs including watchlist (its only in the past week or two its been visible on wikipedia watchlists).
I had presumed that rights logs were only visible to sysops here. You granted me rollback rights on 2nd April, but according to the rights log I had been granted them twice before. 1 in error and 1 quickly oversighted. A recurring theme on the rights log was aggressive behaviour. If I had have known before that this dead weight had have hung over me during the last 15 weeks, I would have quickly vacated wikipedia. Now I understand the hostility some editors have shown me. The "aggression" is well within scope of tracing back. I have certainly made no attempt to hide it (my talk archive with annotation).
I have asked to leave the project - my user page was deleted earlier and my talk page blanked. Morally/ethically/realistically what concerns are there about editors leaving and starting afresh? A blank page and editing under a new username without recourse to stigma which made them bad?
Can you please reply on this user page. AOL may well decide that this IP is needed by another computer before you can reply and the message is probably flashed to an innocent. -- 172.200.5.68 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Well, that's interesting. Fundamentally, this comes down to the difference between what is acceptable to some editors, acceptable to the community and the technical limitations. Firstly WP:RTVmay apply here. RTV is not for editors who are leaving. It is for those who wish to change identity, and are in good standing. Concerns addressed in your user rights log would not seem to indicate to me that you are not in good standing. But it's semantics on what defines "good standing". And I'm not sure what a change of username would accomplish here. To leave and return under a brand new account;
Morally I can't support this, full stop, but my morals are not yours.
Ethically I have less of an issue. At a basic level I believe all Wikipedians should help encourage other editors. An ethical choice between losing you forever v you creating a totally new account, with no mention of the previous account, would seem that Wikipedia is going to be improved by this course of action. Not an ideal choice, at all, but we must prioritise.
Realistically There is nothing to prevent you technically, and with an AOL IP no-one can ever link the accounts.
I am sad it has come to this. I would urge you to consider returning under you existing user name and moving on from this - I believe this is the easiest way forward. Let me know your thoughts. Pedro : Chat 07:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the generous reply. Strictly speaking it is not an invocation of RTV. Wikipedia is big enough that I could have a new user name and would never need to cross paths with previous articles I created or edited and indeed interact with the same editors.
It's certainly not some convoluted form of sock-puppetry. I don't have an agenda to push anything on Wikipedia apart from the usual bumpf we welcome new editors with. A possible drawback in the course of action (It was suggested to me by Dbiel incidentally) is that all editors have unmistakable individual styles of prose and it would be impossible if another editor were to ask me outright if I were Bpeps for me to deny it.
It cannot be stressed enough the particular shame and embarrassment I feel about the branding "aggressive behaviour". If it was on a school report it is not something you would flash to your mom with delight. The addictive quality of Wikipedia makes an outright leaving unthinkable; as would joining the army of disaffected wikipedians who fill the gap of Wikipedia by attacking the project.
I have a lot of thinking to do over the weekend on what to do. Wikipedia is all about learning both in terms of Groupthink (thanks to the other editors who have been so patient with me) and reading up on articles to improve them. I am very unsure of what to do next, but thanks for your consideration and again kind regards. -- 172.213.188.128 (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very best wishes in your deliberations. I can only echo again my thoughts that Wikipedia is here to deliver a free online encyclopedia, and to do that we need constructive volunteers. We already loose to many possibly excellent editors by poor speedy deletions or inappropriate vandalism warnings to good faith editors who just don't know how things work. Every editor lost costs the project dear. Pedro : Chat 12:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm fairly sure that I'll edit under a new user name. I've created one. Flagged Rollback was really only an issue because it created an issue. My reasoning was to give it to all users like Undo which had a brief budzilla/Signpost last June. Thanks for giving it to me (I think I used it twice in very special circumstances), I don't like it, Flagged Rollback takes away editors rights to add even a pithy edit summary. In fact Wikipedia can stuff its l33t tools. Either give the edit tools away to all or make them consensus based. You stuck your head over a parapet for me over RFR despite my many rejections of the whole process.
Gotta wait a few days until I can edit. My aims on Wikipedia are simple - Just to help make it the most dynamic web 2.0 learning experience. I have neither enough patience or commitment to reapply for l33tNis and the next tier of leet comes with flagged revision. I can't wait to see discussion pages moving over questionable copy from various page histories (leet revisions) and after a couple of crises editors realising Wikipedia is a Wiki not a tome.
Best wishes. I trust that the Wikipedia experience will be better for you. I would ask, to avoid any conflict, that you do not advise me of your new identity, either on or off wiki. Sorry to be blunt, but I play this straight and take my admin "position" (bad word - but better than the dreaded "status") seriously. I want to be fair, and I only want to deal in honest and peer reviewable terms. Good luck, God Bless and Happy Editing! Pedro : Chat 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would defeat the whole object if I started handing out change of address cards. There was a debate on Friday about the number of "active" editors at any given period. The foundation used to list them till about 18 months ago and then it was about 1900 with edits >100. Not sure if that figure has increased (the table I saw yesterday three folded the figure) but sysops probably account for only 10%pc of that figure. Most interactions editors have are nay or yes decisions. My sysop debates were very narrow and related to new tiers of user rights rather than day to day stuff. Please rest assured that your email account and myspace is safe from me sending you new address cards and barnstars or wikilove. Enough already. خدا حافظ (God Bless) --EQK 172.188.39.216 (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A request
I have a request to ask of you: You voted neutral on my last RFA, and I've noticed that you seem to give some of the better thought-out opinions on RfA in general. I'm coming up on when I was planning on running again, and I was wondering if you could give me a simple appraisal of how you think I'll do. As I have other things to do around here I'd rather not expend the amount of time and energy necessary just to fail again.--Dycedargж23:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, (and despite Wisdoms's kind comments above I am only one editor). I'm not sure you'd pass at this time. The big, big problem is a lack of content creation. Looking at your last 2,500 edits I see tonnes of excleent vandal fighting combined with some talk page input at Bot Requests and recently at WT:RFA. But it looks (I know this is faithless) like since your last RFA you've just put in machine related tools to satisfy the need to get over your break (identified by myself and many others as the main concern at your last RFA). I may well be wrong, but I think this will count against you. 4 - 6 weeks demomnstrating some actual article writing / content addition is what you really need, as well as more XFD input and possbily C:CSD tagging. Be a well-rounded contributor, more like before your break, rather than just the counter-vandalism thing. Apologies if this is not what you want to hear, but obviously you wanted my honest assessment. Pedro : Chat 07:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. I wanted an honest appraisal. Just a bit of clarification though: The only reason the vandal fighting seems to be the majority of what I'm doing at the moment is the simple fact that it produces by far the most edits. During periods of high vandalism if there aren't a lot of vandalism fighters active I can edit at a rate between 5-9 epm using Huggle easily. That stacks up pretty quickly. Time-wise, my bot work accounts for most of my activity here at the moment. My participation at Bot Requests isn't so much "talk page input" as it is fulfilling requests. Writing ~200 lines of code to fulfill a bot request tends to take me more time than 600 Huggle edits (not that all bot requests require that, but some do), and thus that area of my work isn't so easy to quantify as the AV stuff is. I will admit though that my participation isn't particularly well-rounded at the moment. I have been meaning to do some main space contribution, but writing tends to be a time-intensive process for me and I haven't exactly had abundant amounts of time recently. Ditto for XFD stuff (as I tend to over analyze that sort of thing). As far as the appearance that I'm simply mass-producing edits to make up for my absence, that's really not what I was doing, though I can understand how it could look that way. I haven't really given much thought to the whole adminship thing in a while, the only reason I decided to look into it is because I made a note in my computer's calendar as to when I could run again and decided to see where I'm at with regards to it. Really, if I was revolving my editing around a future RFA I'd probably be spamming XFD votes, CSD requests, and random possibly on-topic comments on various noticeboards and/or talkpages like I've seen some other overly eager admin hopefuls do. </minor sarcasm> I suppose I'll put it off for the time being, as I said I have enough else to do that I'm not in the mood to go wasting my or anyone else's time on something like this at the moment. Thank you very much for your time; I may be back in a month or two to see if anythings different, or perhaps not if the mood never strikes me again. We'll see.--Dycedargж18:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel disgruntled, or that your work is not valued - trust me - it is. But I do, generally, have a good idea of current RFA criteria (I flatter myself!) and can only say how it is. Of course, the mantra is no big deal. Personally I believe you are probably ready - but my personal opinion was not what you solicited - it was my feeling about success or not at RFA. I agree that XFD spam votes etc. are a bad thing if they are done just to gain adminship - indeed the effort inputed is poorly rewarded with a couple of grey buttons and no pay-slip! I beleive my advice to be sound if you wish to ask for the tools and gain them. A failed RFA is always a disapointment, and, well, hurts!. Pedro : Chat 23:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came here because I had reason to hope that you would tell me like it is, so don't worry about that. I will probably end up taking your advice, at least in part, should I ever feel particularly strongly about running again. If I seem disgruntled, it's far more a reflection of my opinion of RfA than of you. I've seen people oppose a candidate for seeming to "edit towards passing RFA", but from what I can see quite a few, if not the vast majority, of qualified editors on this site would have to radically alter their editing patterns to so much as stand a chance, thus making doing so required. I dislike the present system rather strongly, but then it's one of the things that will never change under our current system of policy adoption. In any case thanks again.--Dycedargж00:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rfa thanks
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs04:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you do me a favor? Could you look at this diff, this diff, and this diff and tell me what you think? I took the issue to the talk page like I was told. The reason I want it changed is because science is not atheistic. Your input would be appreciated. RC-0722247.5/112:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My first thoughts are that you are close to WP:3RR so you have done well taking it to talk now. I'm concerned that remarks in edit summaries like "science is in the Bible, therefore it can't be atheistic" is your opinion and not a neutral comment. I am still reviewing the references for the article... Pedro : Chat 13:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering how close I was to 3RR. Also, but what if I had references backing my claim that science was in the Bible and that it isn't atheistic? RC-0722247.5/115:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question would be, how 'relevant is that to the article. Consider that we are trying to make Wikipedia neutral. The fact that the Bible mentions science (as does, for example, The Koran) is not by necessity, a logical argument within the terms of this articles neutrality. Pedro : Chat 21:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [10] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bluntly: Why are you assuming that I need to take this test? I can only assume that I have at some point assumed bad faith, and would ask for the diffs to evindence this and refresh my memory. If this is RFA related, please remember that RFA is not so much AGF but also Don't Assume Good Fath Blindly. To quote from the work; Many claim that there is a group of editors at Wikipedia who make bad decisions or act in a rude and unethical fashion. It is alleged that these Wikipedia editors use the wrong approaches, and that they must change. I do not consider myself amongst this "perceived" group. I don't need to test my good faith. If you feel that my good faith is not apparent, or that my actions as an editor or administrator are in error then I would welcome discussion to rectify these concerns or take further steps (e.g. removal of admin rights, a RFC, preventative block, or ban from editing). I am concerned that you feel I need to take this test, and would welcome dialogue as to why you feel this before I take it. I believe my contribution history should be enough to evidence my general good faith approach. Pedro : Chat 21:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't clicked on the external link. Wikipedia related issues stay on Wikipedia. IRC is bad enough. External links on talk pages invite trouble IMHO, as they are unaccountable to the WP community. Pedro : Chat 21:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The AGF challenge is not about you assuming bad faith, but rather Filll's way of giving other editors some understanding as to why AGF, CIVIL, and WORLD PEACE, are not the solutions to all the Wiki's problem. I'm taking it, and I do recommend it to you too. The first two questions are boring, but then it takes off. Merzul (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd, because nobody has ever claimed that AGF, CIVIL and WORLD PEACE are the solutions to all the Wiki's problems. As far as I can tell, that's a position that's essentially fictional. Most of the questions in the AGF challenge have nothing at all to do with good faith or otherwise. -GTBacchus(talk)22:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, I was characterizing the position that Filll takes on AGF/CIVIL. I disagree, but I think the AGF challenge is a very well-written document. Please view my answers when I'm done. Merzul (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am being asked to take a "challenge" of my good faith by an editor who asks on a talk page (that I made adminstrative input to, at request) of And your argument appears to be as full of holes as piece of Swiss cheese, and makes essentially zero sense. Thanks for your contribution however. [11]. I think not. If User:Filll wants to explore good faith then he should start at home. I'm afraid I'm only interetsed in that article in terms of keeping Wikipedia clean for our readers and positive for our editors. I'm not interested in having my good faith challenged as an indirect way of involving me in a content dispute. I'd ask editors to honestly consider if their personal view is more important than recording factual unbiased information, in-line with the caption underneath the picture at the top of this page. That is what I'm interested in. Pedro : Chat 22:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your good faith isn't being challenged. That's not what the exercise is about. It's about whether you can (or should) maintain an assumption of good faith when dealing with tendentious editors, as in the situations described on that page. Filll has argued in the past that some people focus way too much on AGF, and that if they knew what it was like "in the trenches", then they would not be so blithe about telling others to AGF. That's what's going on with that page. -GTBacchus(talk)22:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self evindently we all assume good faith. It underpins this whole work (i.e. IP editing, WP:BITE, d-1 and v-1 warnings etc etc etc.) I'm not sure why I need to be challenged. AGF itself is that Fill assumes good faith in my edits as I do in his. By challenging me to proove my GF he, by deffenition is no longer assuming good faith - he either assumes or no longer needs to assume by weight of evidence - that my edits are bad faith; Or he assumes that I assume bad faith (diffs please?). I find it unacceptable to ask me to take a challenge to prove my good faith without diffs that I do not. I find the whole thing contradictory that an editor says - "You assume Good Faith - proove it." This seems, at evidence, a content disput and an ill advised use of AGF or some pre-existing "essay" by an editor who has demonstrably (per my diff above) failed to assume good faith. Why don't we focus on the content issue instead? Or, If you wish, take evidence of my bad faith edits to RFC or WP:ANI Pedro : Chat 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's not challenging you to prove your good faith. That's not what "AGF challenge" means. I don't know that anyone doubts your good faith; I certainly do not. I just happen to know that Filll has asked all kinds of people to look at his "challenge", including people he respects very much. He's not challenging you to prove your good faith; nobody here is accusing you of bad faith. The AGF challenge is poorly named; it's just a series of thought experiments about dispute resolution. -GTBacchus(talk)23:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. Looking at anything does not offend (well, not to me!) Reading and learning does not offend. Being accused of bias or a lack of good faith does. Pedro : Chat 22:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not and do not accuse you of not having good faith. The challenge is to see if you can use AGF to solve these 8 exercises. It is just a name that I thought was funny. Some wanted to call it DR Challenge for Dispute Resolution Challenge.--Filll (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I WP:AGF that you asked me to complete this with the best of intentions. I assume you will understand that the X number of keystrokes that it will require to complete this "challenge" will better serve this project if I use them removing the homophobic, racist and sexist attacks we get all the time instead. I'm sorry, but testing my good faith against removing filth and libel from Wikipedia comes a very poor second until editors have a reason to assume I act in bad faith. Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat 22:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is trying to "test your good faith". It's a series of hypothetical DR situations. I may often disagree with Filll, but I have to point out that "testing your good faith" is not what anybody is asking you to do. -GTBacchus(talk)23:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, per "I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge" at the top of this thread. Self evidently I am being asked to take part in a challenge or exercise of my good faith. I'm not sure how you can be unclear here. Your say, verbatim - Nobody is trying to "test your good faith" - This is a total contradiction. Either I am being asked to take place in a good faith test or not. Evidence above says I am. Pedro : Chat 23:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I received precisely the same invitation, and so did many other people. It is not self-evident that you are being asked to challenge or test your own good faith. The challenge is whether you would continue to assume good faith of others in difficult situations, or how you would deal with situations while assuming good faith of others.
The name of the test is terrible. It makes it sound as if it's a test of your own good faith, but anyone who reads it sees immediately that that is not what's being tested. Just ask anyone who's taken it. It is a series of hypothetical DR situations.
What seems "self-evident" turns out to be false if you simply scratch the surface.
I will review tomorrow. However one must consider these facts;
That it is a challenge from an edior I have never interacted with.
An editor who is a serious and dedicated long term user.
An edior who only posts to my page after I interact with them on an emotional and heated article talk page.
In essence the above of mine fails AGF but I feel it only fair that my viewpoint be considered, and that I may have acted in good faith. Again, I see no necessity in completing this "challenge", and per the above urge the editor to consider 1) Dropping the whole thing or 2) Being more cautious in applying badly named "tests" when there is an apparent conflict of interest to other editors. Hopefuly Fill will see how questioning my good faith when in the middle of a content disupte is very much not how we work, irrespective of good faith. Timing and consideration to larger matters are also important. Pedro : Chat 00:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the way this is posted right in the middle of a content dispute also constitutes a great challenge to AGF. :) Merzul (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Pedro, you certainly have no obligation to complete the exercises, or even to read them. I hope nobody implied otherwise. I just happen to know the nature of the beast, and that it wasn't a questioning of your own good faith. It was very much an apparent questioning of your good faith, because of a combination of a bad title, bad timing, and lack of clarity in the invitation. -GTBacchus(talk)21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue that I have not displayed the best of faith here, and I apologise. As GTBacchus sums up above, totally accurately, it was acombination of things that made this look like an inopportune request. I accept that this is not the case, and hope we can all move on. Pedro : Chat 07:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something to munch on when you're in the mood
Cookies!
I've been dishing out Oreos to various users and you're no exception Pedro. Since Barnstars are like..you know..old news, you're getting these. Thanks for all your help over the past few months! Wisdom89(T / C)21:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.[reply]
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Resolved
