I never claimed I could speell, Admin Cabal Memember
I dont have a sence of them and us either, if I was being honest, and yes there is fault on both sides. I try and take each person as I find them, but AN/I is stressful for the novice, and I was pained by the fact that it did take a while last night for my point, however inelegatly expresses, to be accepted on the board. That said, I think-in hindsight, fair enough-you were very fair, and did the upmost to descualte and calm the situation. That Scarian wasn't up to it is no matter, and I dont really care. I said this to Tanthalas39 earlier this week, but I do respect the work admins do, and normally the level of intelligence and good judgement on AN/I is impressive. I don't have the temprament for it myself, but I would have the utmost respect for the vast majority of admins, including, as I said perviously, some of the blocking admins on my log sheet, none of whom I see as anything but good guys. East718 ended it all anyway, so sorry for my harsh words, and sorry again for mispelling you name, P.e.d.r.o. Ceoilsláinte20:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also pleased this is resolved. On a slight tangent, is it my imagination, or is there an increasing tension between content builders and administrators do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard that said as well. Hang on, I'll be back in a few minutes; I think I just heard the tooth fairy knocking at the front door. The problem is perhaps that admin duties tend to draw editors away from encyclopedia building into security enforcement? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And a great many other administrators have never contributed anything worth spit to the encyclopedia's content. I'm not pointing a finger at anyone, just making a general observation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm one of them - hands up. Three or four DYK's. That's it. However there may be an argument that admins with a bit of savvy who don't contribute reams of content are valuable. They tend not to use their tools in content disputes for example, as they don't have content disuputes. Pedro : Chat 21:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting perspective. Certainly the two or three admins I've tripped over in the last few weeks were all involved in content disputes. Not abusing their tools, necessarily, but certainly waving them around in a threatening manner. (Images of tools being waved around are starting to come into my mind which persuade me that I may have said enough, or perhaps even too much. :lol:). --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's something I'm interested in exploring. In fairly recent history RFA was near impossible without a GA / FA etc. When I got the bit project space was everything. Now people are moving back to wanting article writing as well as project space. There must, from my POV at least, be value in saying the janitors are actually more valuable when they really don't care about a paticular article as long as it meets the relevant parts of WP:FIVE. I'm not saying don't give the bit to people unafraid to work on hot topics - indeed I've nominated one such editor who passed. However there is a big issue with admin bullying over WP:OWN issues. There is also an issue with admins who seem to think they're somehow better than everyone else. As I said to User:EVula once (not in a negative way - I just can't be bothered to find the diff at the mo) I've never thought of adminship as a promotion. There is no publishing house in the world that would put their administrators over their authors. Anyone who wishes to doubt this statement will note that my father is an author (indeed with his own WP article!) so I do know how publishing houses work. Pedro : Chat 22:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drop it. It was not "cheap". I meant everything I said. If you consider that I do this for my children as "cheap" that's up to you. You're obviously not a parent. Pedro : Chat 23:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I said it was "Actulally it was very cheap", I was refering to MY words not yours, I put it badly, oh christ. I was saying that I had been cheap! What a mess. The intended meaning was "Actulally my comments were very cheap. I almost instantly regretted what I said, but my apaology was vaguely stated. I was cheep! And I was letting you know that I withdrew the comment, I know you meant every thing you said, and I repect that, and I tried to dedarct what I said....Och.Ceoilsláinte03:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you were perfectly entitled to your view on thoes words which could have been so easily be seen as harsh, and I am obvously careless in my choice of language and tend to fly off the handle. Im going to sumbit to a civility parole, maybe that is about time. You though I was calling your remarks cheap, in all honesty, that is my problem, not yours. I genuinly think that nominating an admin of your choice to watch my ineractions and call my mistakes when they happen is a good idea at this stage. You owe me no apology. This was a bad misunderstanding, but my fault. Ceoilsláinte12:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's ever entirely in the right, and nobody's ever entirely in the wrong would just about sum up my view of life and its inconsistencies. I was rather struck by something Pedro said in the heat of battle yesterday: "I do this to benefit my children, so that they can have a decent resource from which to find out information when they grow up. That's the start and finish of my interest in this website." I don't have children, but my motivation is otherwise identical; good quality information freely available to all. Hopefully even the best you're likely to find anywhere. The apparent schisms opening up between administrators and non-admin content contributors ought to be ringing alarm bells for anyone who shares that vision. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, and to a large extent I blame the whacky and inconsistently applied civility policy for that. How many RfA candidates have you seen when asked what the most important of wikipedia's policies is come out with the stock answer of civility? Too many as far as I'm concerned. There are swathes of articles that no editor in his or her right mind would go near, because to do so would simply bring down the wrath of the single-purpose editors and result in being dragged to the various civility police courts. Any article on Ireland or Irish history for instance, or dare I mention intelligent design? Those areas are just left to the zealots, because there's no protective covering fire. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Favour
Dearest Pedro. On the basis that you have a fancy sig and therefore must be a wiz with these rectangular things, could you hop on over to Locks on the Canal du Midi and see if you can work out what the hell is wrong with my otherwise rather fabulouso table? - it insists on either having a phantom last column, or, worse, if I code it "correctly" (i.e. as per the examples), it shoves the first data row in to the last column. It must be something blindingly simple but for the life of me I can't work out what it is. Any ideas? (Pedro's talk page stalkers do feel free to jump in here too.....) Much appreciated, cheers, Nancy talk20:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The gentelman in the above thread fixed it for you whilst I was working on it! It was the header rowspans - where they defined the rest of the table (Malleus' fix was beter than mine which involved changing the value). Looks good in IE - haven't checked in FF. Pedro : Chat 21:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - Malleus ec'd my fix and ec'd my reply. Naturally a block is the only option to stop him in his relentless quest to improve the encyclopedia. Pedro : Chat 21:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is your talk page after all. I'll get back to writing about my real interests: the occult, witchcraft, and the primeval fear of being buried alive. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this talk page starts becoming focused on article improvement rather than pointless meta discussion I'm going to loose all my credibility in the super secret "not very good admins only" IRC channel............ Pedro : Chat 21:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone - it looks fantastic now. Just knew it was something stupid I had done. And double thanks to Pedro for sacrificing his reputation. OK everyone back to WT:RFA ;) --Nancy talk06:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alow me to help you with the definition. Ironically, one of sister projects seems to have a rather apt point 1 and 2 defenition of RFA.... and the second and third synonyms could quite easily encapsulated some of those who comment there, sadly. [2].... Pedro : Chat 20:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking you to recreate it so I can get the five deleted edits back that I made to the page, and I won't be able to if I recreate it. Don't do it now, as I'll be going up for the night and therefore will not be able to put it into use; just leave me a friendly reminder to leave it on your talkpage. Thank you, --Stereotyper (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't five deleted edits. The page was created by you in one edit? Are you sure there isn't something else you might be refering to that was deleted other than this template? Pedro : Chat 21:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pedro. I know that you're quite a senior administrator around here so I was wondering whether you might be able to help me. I feel I have been unfairly treated by another admin. I am TheRetroGuy, who was blocked last night by Toddst1 for edit warring. But there's actually quite a history to this which I feel was not taken into account. There has recently been an edit dispute on the page Jenny Agutter which I tried to resolve on more than one occasion and was met with hostility. In the course of this I found that one of the users involved was operating several acounts abusively - something which the user admitted to, so I filed a checkuser report (see this checkuser request). With the sockpuppet accounts gone, a resolution was quickly reached, and I thought the matter was closed, but the sockmaster appeared to return last night (editing anonymously, as seems to be the norm with this user when he/she wishes to continue a dispute) and began making disruptive edits once again. I began reverting the edits and issuing the relevant user warnings, and this eventually led to me reporting the user to WP:AIV - in hindsight perhaps not the ideal place. I also requested page protection which was granted by Edgar181. In retaliation, the anonymous user reported me to AIV, which seemed obviously disruptive to me so I removed the report. I was consequently blocked for 31 hours by Toddst1. My userpage was also semi-protected following some harrassment from the anonymous IPs concerned.
I then requested an unblock, which was refused by Coren, but he agreed to allow another admin to look at my case when I made a second request a few minutes later. Toddst1 then added what I felt was an unnecessary remark to my page, which made me extremely angry and I decided that I wanted to leave Wikipedia. I added a template to my page which effectively announced my resignation - again perhaps that was a bit rash. Toddst1 then fully protected my userpage, citing abuse of the unblock process as a reason (I don't quite understand the reasoning for this). As I said above, I believe I have been unfairly treated by this user, who does not appear willing to give me a proper hearing. Having slept on the matter I still feel as though I would like to leave Wikipedia because I am disgusted with the treatment I have received for doing something in good faith, i.e., trying to prevent disruptive edits from a sockpuppet.
I realise I probably shouldn't be leaving you this message while the block is in force, but I don't know what else to do. I would be grateful if you could review the unblock (if that's possible) as I know you to be fair minded and I'll accept whatever decision you make. I would also like to know if there's any way I can make an official complaint against Toddst1. I think he's used excessive force in dealing with this situation, and his comments and full protection of my page make me feel as though I've been victimised by him. I'm sorry that I'm leaving as up until last night I had enjoyed the Wikipedia experience immensely, but I feel there's no other avenue open to me now. My good name has been blackened and it's time to move on.
Replied on your talk, and unlocked your talk page. Please sign back in to acknowledge as without confirmation this is you I will not unblock. Pedro : Chat 10:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, it appears that TheRetroGuy has met your conditions for unblocking and since you indicated that you would be away from your computer, I took the liberty of granting his request. Cheers —Travistalk12:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your help. I've decided I won't leave as that is not what I really wanted to do. I was just annoyed and in an 'I've been carpeted by the boss so I'm outta here' frame of mind. I've decided to take a Wikibreak as I think one would probably do me some good. I'm not sure how long I'll be away. Could be a couple of days or a few months. But I will return. Thanks again. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At such point as the technology begrudingly decides the proper place for them is my inbox I'll be pleased to read them ... :) ! Pedro : Chat 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I resent it using the Wiki. Last time I just hit reply from my yahoo account. I don't think it should have mattered though. Maybe you were right to get wise with technology. Wisdom89(T / C)15:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No mucking around, and no of wiki conversations per [4]. I've offered to nominate Wisdom for adminship and he has let me know via e-mail that Useight is also interested in nomming. Let's not see opposes based on half comments and misinterpretations of on wiki conersation, leading to a misunderstanding of what has or has not been said. Pedro : Chat 08:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty obvious, but I like to keep these things "above board" as it where. No "behind the scenes, off wiki, IRC" opposes are needed or desired. Pedro : Chat 14:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was just being lighthearted. Pedro makes an excellent point, and it crossed my mind as well - I don't want to see opposes with allegations of off-wiki conspiring. Wisdom89(T / C)14:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. just scrolling through talk pages looking for vandals when I found this! Malleus, whenever your next RFA does come around I hope you do pass. ;) —Ceran → (Talk) (email) 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Pedro . I'm totally disagree with a deletion of an Slad and Veter page. It's a heroes from the one of most popular USA Tv commercial...Millions of people(including me) are watching this commercial and they're really curios about every detail in this spot, especially about those guys. just type the Techno Twins commercial in the Google and you'll see how many things are there about it.It's already a 145.000 views on a you-tube and thousands of comments. And people are asking about the same thing OVER and OVER again.
So, i think that u should rethink your decision.
Hi, Pedro . I'm totally disagree with a deletion of an Slad and Veter page. It's a heroes from the one of most popular USA Tv commercial...Millions of people(including me) are watching this commercial and they're really curios about every detail in this spot, especially about those guys. just type the Techno Twins commercial in the Google and you'll see how many things are there about it.So, i think that u should rethink your decision.
thank you.
More problems
Just a note to warn you that my friend has returned and has been adding unsourced material to pages. I've been reverting it, requesting reliable references, and may have gone over the three revert limit. I think this is a continuation of the harrassment from earlier in the week, and that it is going to continue for as long as my account remains active. I'm starting to believe I should retire as TheRetroGuy and start again under a different name. I'd really appreciate some advice on this. Cheers. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I saw the threats on your user page just now. We can't have people threatening to "punish" other editors. No way. Not good. I'll try and get some time to see what help I can give. Pedro : Chat 10:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Pedro, just wondering why you decided to delete the page I was creating. I put the page under construction because I was continuing to pull sources for the article to make it more robust. Please get back to me on why you decided this page should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjdehut (talk • contribs)
I deleted it because it did not assert importance or significance. Yes, I know you toned it down a bit as it did read pretty much like an advert (however it still did look pretty promotional to be honest). The main problem was the lack of notability however. What I could do is restore the article and move it to your user space to work on to establish notability / importance. Would that help? Pedro : Chat 21:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well I wasn't finished with it, that is why I put the under construction thing at the top... Also, so you don't delete it again when I repost it, what do YOU consider to be notable? I figured being purchased by one of the largest media corporations in the world was relatively notable. Also, I don't know how this is any different from any of the other marketing/advertising agencies' wiki pages, like Ogilvy and W+K.
Deletion of Jamie Cruickshank
Hi there, I tagged Jamie Cruickshank for speedy deletion as non-notable and you deleted it. It turns out there was an arguably notable person of the same name in the history, and the page had been hijacked for a non-notable. Wiuld you be kind enough, please, to undelete it and I can then revert to the original subject? Thanks in advance, and apologies too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...have you and Useight been able to coordinate anything in the last week or so? I'm absolutely in no rush, but I'm probably going to start gathering together my thoughts and words for my next RfA. Do you want to notify me of a date, or should we just play it by ear? Either way is fine by me. Cheers man. Wisdom89(T / C)23:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was intending to have a bash tomorrow as it happens. Got to cover up all your terrible UAA and AIV reports with some glowing prose..... Ha Ha! No, seriously, I guess the time is right. Of course with virtually no activity at WP:RFA scrutiny will be particularly harsh - which is a good thing, in fariness. BTW - want as task? Take a gander at Global Peace Festival and the talk page - I'd be interested in your input. Pedro : Chat 23:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, always the jokster aren't you? Luckily since graduate school ended, I've been able to concentrate more on cleaning up some good old fashion biology articles. I'll also take a looksy at the page you indicated and see what's going on there. Wisdom89(T / C)23:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added my co-nomination to the page, hopefully it's not too long. P.S. - Pedro, you have a typo in your nomination; you have "pe" instead of "per" in the second-to-last paragraph. Useight (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been transcluded. I just wanted to say nice job with the nom. Extremely fair, informative and candid. Thank you for your willingness to nominate me again Pedro. Cheers mate. Wisdom89(T / C)16:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what is going on here? Is something going on, or not? Gurch just changed his neutral comment to "I like fish". I'm very perplexed. Wisdom89(T / C)22:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, really - its not true. Don't jump to conclusions based on a gurch neutral! You both have way too much familiarity with RfA for that mistake. Avruch T 22:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it too much to heart Wisdom, RfA is a bear pit and you're the bear. Besides, don't even think of withdrawing before I've had a chance to register my very, very, very strong support. Chin up. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No income tax in New Hampshire... But I meant on Wikipedia. Don't take it personally - you do what you think is right, and sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. You couldn't (and shouldn't) have done anything differently, and the outcome isn't yet determined. Avruch T 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm irritated by the trolling on this RFA. Honestly (and I know Wisdom will read this) it'll fail. Bugger. But it could at least have failed without the grief. What pisses me of more than anything is the UAA stuff. The guy gets beaten up for being to stern. Learns from it and goes easy and gets beaten up for being too forgiving. Dear goodness me. This place is starting to become more trouble than it's worth. net positive doesn't have to apply to RFA - it can apply to the whole reward/effort thing on WP. However, rant over, and my thanks for your kind words. Pedro : Chat 23:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, MF - you're right. I shouldn't bitch abut it. I'm just frustrated by the trolling in Neutral on Wisdom's RFA. It's beyond petty and it's not actually so funny. I think I should step away as my input at the moment is likely to become even less useful Pedro : Chat 23:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty obvious that Wisdom's RfA is unlikely to succeed, but that doesn't make Wisdom a bad person, simply demonstrates once again that the denizens of RfA can't tell their arses from their elbows. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Pedro - you and I share paralleled thoughts. I do not appreciate the trolling in the neutral section - I find it in poor taste. Secondly, the UAA concerns are unsettling to say the least given the flak I received in RfA number 3 regarding my stringency. I'm not implying I changed my behavior based on that to pass my next RfA (I wasn't even sure there was going to be one), but adopting a non-bite mentality is far from a dangerous course of action. Ah well, RfA is a biotch : ) Wisdom89(T / C)00:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what it looks like tomorrow. Meantime I just buggered up undeletion of my user page so I now have to design a new one, as well as sorting out the links to my user sub pages again. Joy. Off to bed now - the children will be waking me up in < 7 hours ... ! Pedro : Chat 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it, but the way RfA treats people, even when they try and improve upon the way it works, is one of the prime reasons why I no longer edit in that area or anything related to it. I wish Wisdom the best of luck with the RfA, but after the way I was getting worked up on WT:RFA at times it's best that I stay clear of the entire area, for better or worse. I wouldn't throw the bit in because of it. It is unlikely to change anything and will at most be met with a mass shrugging of shoulders. Gazimoff00:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm fairly convinced that once again the rather nitpicky non-opposes have begun to start a chain reaction, or, at least, will. While not entirely a pile on, and although my percentage is still above 75, I would rather chew broken glass than sit through another 6 days of the same. My Wiki-stress level is through the roof at the moment. The lenient UAA stuff is, to put it bluntly, mindbogglingly ridiculous. I think this is the first time I've seen opposes based on assuming good faith. At any rate, I'm withdrawing and will be taking a Wiki-respite in the meantime. Thank you, Pedro, for your confidence in me. Wisdom89(T / C)13:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to stay away from RfA indefinitely and concentrate on improving those articles I have a vested interest in: Biology and music. I decided a short break from this place isn't going to undo any of the disconcerting feelings I have. Cheers matey. Wisdom89(T / C)16:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IRC issue with Wisdom's RfA
I was on IRC at the time, and Gurch and Macy seemed to be playing around, but Wisdom's IRC was indeed mentioned, and a user mentioned that they would be opposing, and later started un-needed IRC drama, by cheering when Wisdom got another oppose. I would log, but as I'm sure you know - that is not allowed. iMatthew17:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the response I get from what I consider years of valued and dedicated service to the project, not to mention month after month of participation at RfA? (I'm assuming that is why I was being urged to fail - RfA). Because I like to vet every candidate who comes to RfA, I get obnoxious comments and off-channel saboteurs? And even if that's not it - the only thing I have to say is "shameful". Wisdom89(T / C)17:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I say, I'd write more but I'd rather not be blocked. I'm considering how my engagement with this project might have to change, given that we now seem to be run by off wiki IRC discussion. I'll ponder exactly where I sit, and more importantly feel comfortable with sitting, given that backdrop. Pedro : Chat 17:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, truly I think you are taking the IRC element of this problem too seriously. One person pasted the link to Wisdom's RfA, one other person made a negative comment, and Gurch (unwisely) turned it into a sarcastic "IRC conspiracy!!!" joke that he posted in the neutral section. You both should remember that Gurch often votes neutral in RfAs with silly and unserious comments. Many of us in the IRC channel (including ops) were clear with the few people who were joking that it was inappropriate and unnecessary. Wikipedia, like most communities, has its share of people who sometimes exercise poor judgment. But the lapses don't define the community, or even the people who make them. It's simply an unfortunate circumstance, and I think if the RfA had developed further you would have seen that by far most people were taking it seriously. Avruch T 19:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given my trust in yourself and Ryan P (the only other channel op I know) then this does add a different complexion. However I'm still extremly uncomfortable where I sit given the constant references to IRC "decisions" (this is far wider than Wisdom's RFA). Wether I can continue to be an admin against this backdrop is something I need to think about. Is trying to do the right thing of greater moral value, even though I have extreme misgivings with the environment I'm trying to do the right thing in?. It's probably a good job I'm not a religious man. I'll have to dwell on my admin bit, but meantime I thank you for your useful and timely input Avruch. Pedro : Chat 19:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Pedro, that is an interesting document on your user page. The anticipated sponsorship means that the foundation is budgeting on the basis of agreeing a sponsorship deal that will account for a large part of the turnover - large enough that in my experience whatever the wording of the contract you are beholden to that sponsor. The half a million donation in kind is smaller but still above that threshold, do you know who the sponsor is, how long the deals are for and what they will get in return? ϢereSpielChequers18:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have no idea. Of many things in that document I found page 15 to be of interest when it comes to spending money. It has long been my impression that Wikimedia needs money (and it does need money) to spend on hardware to deliver our core service. Apparently this focus is changing from hardware to staff. Pedro : Chat 19:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, I read that document a couple days ago and well I had several emotions about it, I think from the tone of your comments they were probably the same emotions you have. MBisanztalk20:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Man, I don't post here that often and I hate to have successive posts come off all preachy... But if you have no idea of the details, and yet are obviously interested, then you should subscribe to foundation-l and ask. Its what I did. The reaction to that annual plan on foundation-l was actually pretty positive, for what I think are generally good reasons. I could go into why I think hiring a professional staff makes sense if you like - the nutshell is that the WMF has goals that go well beyond maintaining the servers that host Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, and to accomplish those goals they need to take in considerably more money. Most of the new staff is oriented in that direction. As for the big grants - that is from the Sloan Foundation, 3 million over 3 years. Avruch T 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's anything less than positive. I'm saying regular editors should be made aware. I've got some minor issues in terms of staff / resource handling but at no point did I say I disagreed with it. I just think it should be more obvious. Pedro : Chat 00:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the community giving hire - you have to speculate to accumulate, some while back I rewrote Payroll giving partly in anticipation of the restart of the UK chapter (in a recent job I had I did some corporate social responsibility stuff, including encouraging colleagues to give money to charity and persuading our US head office to do a 50% match). I assume the remit of a community giving person is to get lots of small donations in a less intrusive way than irritating ads on every screen, I believe this is doable and you don't get great pressure to sell your soul for small donations as turning down a few a year is unlikely to irritate the accountants. The head of partnerships post implies to me a strategy of seeking out some big donor "partners", which raises the concern that they might want something out of partnering with Wikipedia - however tapping into charities is much more in keeping with our ethos and having three million over three years from the Sloan foundation covers nearly half of that and reassures me a lot. The developers intrigue me, it will still be a small IT team but I see this as a big expansion, and I don't know why - I can understand that growth requires faster kit, normally with extra IT developers I expect extra functionality or a major system migration so I'd be intrigued to hear what they are planning, I hope it isn't some tidy mind wanting to bring core functions in house that are currently done by volunteers. But it will still be a tiny IT team, considering our global importance. ϢereSpielChequers07:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I knew how to link directly to posts in the list archives, I would. I don't, however, so I'll quote selectively and hope that since its a public list no one minds.
Excerpt of post from Sue Gardner, to foundation-l, on August 23:
"Sara Crouse, Head of Partnerships and Foundation Relations, is working with Sue, Erik, Rebecca Handler (Head of Major Gifts) and Jay to plan and stage the Foundation's first-ever funders' briefings – informal events bringing together a few dozen current and potential financial supporters. The goal of the briefings is to share and discuss the Wikimedia Foundation's key goals and plans. We also hope to line up major donation commitments in advance of the online fundraiser which is planned to launch in late October.
Sara, with Sue, Erik and Frank Schulenburg, is engaged in the development of several major funding proposals for foundations:
A proposal aimed at encouraging participation among technology-averse subject-matter experts: people who have a lot of knowledge to contribute to the projects, but who are currently dissuaded from contributing because they don't want to learn wiki syntax, and/or are experiencing other technical or social/cultural barriers to participation.
A proposal aimed at growing the Arabic-language Wikipedia and the Arabic-language Wikimedia community.
A proposal aimed at building technical interfaces among wiki communities.
A proposal aimed at staging an international slate of Wikipedia Academies."
Excerpt of post from Erik Moeller, to foundation-l, on Feb 6:
"In the next few days, I'll try to put together a coherent Wikimedia Foundation FAQ on partnerships with other organizations and companies: What we do, what we don't do, how we decide things, who to talk to, etc. This is meant to ease the workload of staff & volunteers responding to external inquiries.
If there are existing pages & FAQs I should be aware of, please let me know.
Please note that this will be written on the basis of the current resource constraints: We really do not have a lot of organizational bandwidth to effectively execute partnerships right now, so in many cases, the best we can do is provide guidelines and help people to work with community volunteers. Even when we do hire a head of partnerships (and that will be very much dependent on our finances as we go forward), they'll only have a very small staff to work with.
Sue & I also think it might make sense to create a dedicated OTRS queue for potential partnerships. I know a lot of this goes to the info queue already, but it'll make sense, I think, to build a team of dedicated volunteers for this space. If you have any thoughts on that, let me know."
So I think partnerships are a little bit of seeking out more funding in terms of donations, but also for looking into other ways to generate revenue - i.e. via paid RSS feeds, co-branding of items (I think there is, or was discussion about, a Wikipedia monopoly or trivial pursuit for instance... Not sure I like that idea, personally) and also ways of increasing participation in content generation and dissemination by communities of experts from which we don't draw many editors currently. Avruch T 15:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Avruch, (and to Pedro for hosting this on his talk page) I find this very reassuring especially the idea of coding up what we are and are not prepared to do. From experience elsewhere that can lead to interesting discussions in any organisation, but especially a not for profit. BTW I'm intrigued as to what thinking went into the decision to prioritise the Arabic development as opposed to various other languages, I hope this was some sort of analysis of language users with Internet access. ϢereSpielChequers22:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avruch, apologies, I've not had time to read this in full; I will try to over the next few days. Thank you very much for you dilligent research. Pedro : Chat 22:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just checking - did you randomly pick that article, or do you have a particular interest in it? Because since you used it as an example, it occurs to me that it would be nice to see the article improved (although FAC might be aiming a tad high), so I'll probably give it a shot. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
request for third opinion
Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down a section on 'allegation of cruelty' as subsection under 'criticism' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, the summary of dispute can be found at [5], please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that 'alleged' bias may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully a member of the bureaucratic team has indicated that admins with little or no experince in content contribution are less capable and able than those who do have this experience. Sadly I'm afraid I am one of these admins with little experience in writing. I would recommend WP:3O and wish you the very best in resolving these editing issues, and my apologies I cannot particpiate. Pedro : Chat 22:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just spent a great deal of leisure running through ARBCOM history. Guess how many "not very good at article writing" admins where there due to abuse. More importantly, guess the percentage of "I'm an admin and this is my article admins there were. I'm confident you'll get my drift. Non article writing wanabee admin children are no use. Non article writing " I am honestly in it to help" editors are another thing. But that's my worthless opinion.
On the lighter side of the news I created a WP:SOCK today, used it to decline an A7 that clearly did not meet A7 criteria and got a warning about removing tags. The comedy factor is sublime. Pedro : Chat 01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
/me notes smugly that he actually got reported to AIV (thank God it was declined...) a few days ago at school for removing inappropriate CSD tags while not logged in. I have a much more compassionate view of IP editors now. J.delanoygabsadds04:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
time for
A beer?
ϢereSpielChequers is offering you a Wiki Beer! Liquid refreshment promotes WikiHarmony and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the harmony by offering a beer to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Best served refrigerated (not applicable in England). Temperature and Alcoholic strength varies according to age, religion and geographic location of recipient, US residents below the age of 21 are best advised to keep this beerstar until travelling in a country with less ageist drinking laws. NB This Beerstar is compatible with all known fake IDs
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. Tan | 3901:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise. Please don't block me. I promise to edit some articles. Maybe. I already have some sandbox text prepared. It doesn't have references but seems good enough for inclusion into the article on on Cheese. It says YOU IS THE GAY - LOL. Please let me add this to the wikipedia Pedro : Chat 01:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article named Andrea (singer) was recently deleted by you. Could you please restore it. I created the stub article as I didn't have much info at that point of time. Now I have gathered data and want to work on it.
Gazimoff has given you a pie! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!
Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{subst:Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you for your support in my RfA, which closed as successful a few hours ago. As a colonial but of the southern kind, I will of course work hard at the list of virtues you mentioned as well as "smiles and whistles under all difficulties",[6] a behaviour which will likely get me many strange looks from my work colleagues.
On a more serious note, thanks for your support and feel free to stop by with any advice or a gentle push in the right direction if I seem to have made any silly mistakes along the way. Euryalus (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Kimu. I've not seen any progress on that talk and it's so far removed from anything I know about I'm not sure I can add value to be honest. Pedro : Chat 21:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tried out my new RB rights other than on the test page and my user namespace. (Thx, BTW). I noticed on edit summaries, clicking undo produces the "Undid reversion 34589435 by..." with a link to WP:UNDO, but no link is automatically provided to WP:Rollback feature when it reads "Reverted edits by Example to...". Is there a way this can be done? Thx. ←Signed:→Mr. E. SánchezGet to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 20:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check out Wikipedia:RBK#Custom_edit_summaries. Basically, you can alter the edit summary but obviously if you have to change some .js / css files each time it negates the use of the tool as a one click revert! I've allways used the custom edit summary and if I want to explain what I'm doing then I just use undo instead. A classic example is blanking - unless it's a whole article I use undo with an explanation of "rv unexplained blanking". If someone inserts "is teh gay lol" in an article it's not worth anything but the default rollback summary so I just hit the button. Hope that helps. Pedro : Chat 21:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It helps, yes :). I guess what I'm asking is why it can't be there by default. I suppose they programed it to show WP:UNDO so wondering-eyes know what "Undid" means. I kinda want them to know what Revert means, too. So that they're not confused by Undid and Revert. LOL It's hard to explain what I mean. Thx for your help! ←Signed:→Mr. E. SánchezGet to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 21:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it would be possible to create a custom edit summary that said;
If you speak to one of the editors who created the .js at the link above they may be able to help. My javascript is shaky at best! Pedro : Chat 21:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the system message is defined at MediaWiki:Revertpage, so it could in principle be changed to include the link. Although I personally would rather remove the link in the undo message, I often remove it manually cause it takes up too much characters in the edit summary. :) Cheers, AmaltheaTalk23:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That page definitely does not fall under G1, it's not patent nonsense. Before it was blanked, it did have some nonsensical information on it, but it was on a user talk page, not an article.Useight (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was reverting myself as soon as I double-checked what I had done, but you beat me to it. If someone out there was trying to prove that new users with "interesting" names attract negative attention when using bizarre, semi-taunting edit summaries, he or she proved the point. --Dynaflowbabble11:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... since I became an admin, with your support. I hope that I've lived up to your expectations, but please let me know if you see room for improvement. Regards, BencherliteTalk12:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Just curious on your block of 131.109.19.19(talk·contribs·block log). Since the IP had not been issued any warnings since October, I declined [7] the block request (as this report fails AIV criteria #3) and instead issued the IP a warning [8]. Please note that I am not complaining, as I am genuinely curious. Regardless, I follow a 0RR for the actions of the fellow admins, and defer the issue to your good judgment. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Now I look at it I actually made an error here. The key edit I thought I saw was [9] and I thought it was that IP - WP:BLP concerns are allways a huge worry. Now on review I see it wasn't that IP- oops!! However the other factor was that I noticed in the block log that there have already been several very long schoolblocks - generally with previous blocked educational establishments a further block can be done without going through warnings. So although I was actually incorrect on the diff, the other poor edits today and historical issues lead me to think I'll leave it at 1 month - I'd certainly bow to another opinion however. Pedro : Chat 16:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I find it more than a little disappointing that over a dozen of this IP's edits were reverted without a single warning being issued. However that strikes me as more of a failure of the Wikipedia community (and its obligation under WP:BLOCK to inform and educate users). However as I said before, I defer to the your good judgement. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're not wrong on the warnings. When I got the bit I thought - "ohhh AIV will be easy - just turn up and hit the button" and then you realise what a mess it is, no warnings, one bad edit from the day before, content disputes etc. etc. etc. I'm not a stickler for going through the whole level 1,2,3 thing (in cases where we just need to stop damage asap) but yes, warnings are important. I've looked further at this IP and I can't see anything productive so I don't think we'll loose anything here which is the main thing. On a personal note I looked over your user page and noticed that we seem to share both ideological beliefs and the glory of being born in the same year! Pedro : Chat 16:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, small world! Among my family and friends, my ideological beliefs are viewed as being pretty ... unique. Running into others who share similar views is always a pleasant surprise! As to the IP in question, I absolutely agree with you about the lack of productive edits. My only concern was that the IP did not receive any warnings prior to its block. I have no problems issuing a block without any prior warnings if it stops a vandalism or spamming spree ... but otherwise I like to make sure IPs were warned first. As you may have noticed on my user page, I feel that process is important. :-) --Kralizec! (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE: New Page Watcher
Cheers for the tools :) I'm not sure I'm willing to stick myself into the firing line again just yet, I still make crucial errors here and there and I need to iron them out a bit. I'm hoping to get some admin coaching in the future too by Malinaccier (talk·contribs) but I'm currently on the waiting list.
I'll take this as, "balloonman, I don't need you to nom me after all ;-) " Anyways, good luck, sorry I didn't get to your quicker. I've been busy in RL and haven't had a chance to look you over. If you want a potential conom, I could look you over this evening... but that would mean waiting to transclude until then. either way, I will definitely participate in your RfA ;-) Good luck.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon18:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saw it just went live... good luck... also, 2 noms is perfect, especially when they are both respected noms. That and the referal I got for you... I suspect that I will be supporting... but I'll do my due dilligence first ;-)---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon19:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On my blackbery running opera mini which limits the amount of text i can preload into an edit box . . . . guess I will have to wait to tomorrow to support - good luck THO but I dont think lick counts here !
Your nom
Pedro, your nom was very refreshing, especially the way your parsed your points. Having created Interstate Income Act of 1959, I really wanted to thank you in person for such a fine job. Sometimes little things, like itemization, mean the most. Lawshoot!10:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Actually, I've used that format on several nominations before - it tends to work well in avoiding tl;dr issues. And
Hello, Pedro, the fate of the Yonsei has been discussed over weeks on relevant talk pages between users, so there would be no need for WP:RM (highly unlikely finished in 5 days). A newbie named Occidentalist (talk·contribs) moved it with cut-and-paste edits on [[Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei). I would like to ask you to move the dab entries from Yonsei (disambiguation) to Yonsei for further discussion. Thanks.--Caspian blue15:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll need to look further. Given the dispute I'm not going to take unilateral action. It may be tomorrow before I can do anything. I think it's at RM now though .... Pedro : Chat 19:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, per WP:PRIME and some dubious POV editing, Yonsei should redirect to a disambig and the Japanese term should be retitled accordingly. The rather large issue is the cut and paste moves such as here. I think we need two things - clear consensus on where the page sits and an admin who has the time, abilitiy and patience to fix the cut and paste. I've never repaired a cut and paste move so I'm not to keen on atempting it to be honest. I'd recommend a request at WP:AN (not ANI!!) for assistance in fixing it. Pedro : Chat 07:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Do not revert warnings
Hold on now, I haven't edited his page since this edit about 25 minutes ago. Please tell me where I have edited. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 20, 2008 @ 12:51
OK, you are probably wondering what the above note was. Looks like this was put on my talk page. I didn't look at my history, just looked at the edit. It was placed as-is by User:Theaveng. Had I looked at my history, I would have noticed that. It wasn't til it was removed by another admin that I noticed that it wasn't from you. My apologizes on the mistake and you might want to have a word about trying to impersonate another user. I will be more careful before I edit. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 20, 2008 @ 12:57
It's not him, it's me: I am not administrator. Outside of the areas I work in, I am an unknown. 1 or 2 co-nominators who work in other areas of the project would strengthen the overall nomination. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I'm firmly of the opinion that only administrators should nominate RfA victims candidates. After all, it's only them who fully understand what a shit job it is. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum21:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(←) To reply to the question as a good talk page stalker: I suggest you see which admins the person you are planning to nominate has been dealing with in a good way, in the best case looking for someone who praised the nominee. Then approach them with your request. If you cannot find one this way, try looking for admins who are working in the same areas as your nominee (and/or those areas he/she wants to work on later) and ask one of them if they are willing to co-nominate. Regards SoWhy23:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied on your talk Davidwr. If we are honest it probably doesn't make any difference wether the nominator is an admin or not (although Malleus does raise a good point that only admins can appreciate quite how lousy it can be as a role). Wether the nominator is respected / trusted / familiar at RFA shouldn't make a difference but of course in reality it does. It's not good but it's the way it is. Agree with SoWhy that ideally nominators should have had some interaction with the candidate. Pedro : Chat 22:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there
After a short respite, I'm back. Although, I'm sure no one noticed : ). I've discovered that it's much more tranquil here when you don't follow the happenings at RfA. Wisdom89(T / C)21:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate - was trailing off a bit the last few weeks, then just decided to leave the Wiki be for a few days to see if it would ameliorate the stress. It did. Then I got a little concerned that some articles might turn into battlegrounds, hence my return : ) Did I miss anything? Wisdom89(T / C)21:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One admin resigned. One fired and then given his bit back. General incivility and rudery all round over a case involving Giano. No, you didn't miss much at all. Pedro : Chat 21:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, ok, I uncovered the fiasco that led to the resignation. That really underscores the discretion users should make before they edit. It also reveals the ridiculous hierarchy mentality that permeates this place. Not to drudge it up again, but if I were present for any of these discussions, I would backed Balloonman 100% with gusto. Wisdom89(T / C)22:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem for me is that the threads have totally failed to set a precedent for what is and is not acceptable action. So all that effort, one admin lost, and we haven't even managed to get a guideline or example for the future about what 'crats should/should not do in respect of discounting votes. Sigh. The User:Scarian thing was even more "fun". Pedro : Chat 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An incredible lapse in judgment/loss of wiki-patience. It happens. Again, had I been present, I would have fallen immediately into the resysop category. Unbecoming of an administrator and behavior that should never be condoned, but nothing that the community cannot recover from. I can't decide which is more interesting though. Wisdom89(T / C)22:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly still don't exactly think that me+admin would be a good thing for me, or even the community, because article building is my love. J.delanoy offered to nominate me for adminship- but I don't want to go for it yet. I can feel this hostility - what is your opinion? Since you've been my official "mentor" since the beginning, I've come to you. Please, be truthful and frank, if need be; you may assume that I will be offended but I'll probably end up laughing it off like with the facial hair thing. This is the time I need you most. I invite other users to contribute as well. Sincerely, —Ceran♦ (talk)02:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note here - if your editing habits don't go by the wayside upon being granted the bit, I'd say all is well. If you think your editing will suffer, then that's certainly something you need to consider. Wisdom89(T / C)03:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess anything is possible... but I'm mostly concerned because I would have to make admin actions and that might be a bit time consuming, if you know what I mean. ;) —Ceran♦ (talk)03:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor, I'm not all that familiar with you, but the mere fact that you openly invite Malleus' opinion of you means you have the skin of a rhinoceros. I would support your RFA based only on your opening of this thread right here. At this point, you have done what you want on Wikipedia, and done it well I surmise. It wouldn't change, and if it did, you wouldn't enjoy it, and you'd go back to what you enjoy. Simple as that. Admin pay sucks just as bad as editor pay. Go for it if only for the intense editor review that results. Keeperǀ7603:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. To spare your feelings I shall keep my opinion of your comment to myself. Suffice to say that I would not be lining up in the support column in any RfA as I believe that there are already far too many children administrators. --MalleusFatuorum14:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be tomorrow before I can look at this I'm afraid. Sunday is children, lunch and red wine day (not in any particular order) :)Pedro : Chat 12:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can only echo Keeper above. If you want to run go for it, but be prepared for how brutal RFA can be and the fact that there is no reward in getting the tools. If J wants to nominate go for it - he's a sound editor with plenty of experience. Pedro : Chat 10:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of television stations in North America by media market
I thought I would bring this to your attention and let you decide how you want to deal with it. After the 24 hour protection was up on List of television stations in North America by media market, Theavengreverted to Nielsen based changes in violation of the OTRS ticket (#2008091610055854). Emarsee reverted asking in his edit summary that "Theaveng" "stop being so disruptive" and requested continued page protection on WP:RFPP (which, as of this post, hasn't happened).
I will not get in the middle of this and will not template "Theaveng", so as not to escalate the situation, but I thought you should be made aware of what is going on. Take Care and Enjoy Your Weekend...NeutralHomer • Talk • November 22, 2008 @ 08:07
Incorrect. I reverted to FCC changes that I acquired from the U.S. Federal Code, which is public domain, and has nothing to do with any corporation or copyright. Oh, and my real name is "Troy". Perhaps I should have picked a better handle that sounded more friendly. ---- Theaveng (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you for the nomination. I should take this opportunity to confess that my user page has plenty of "silly user boxes" but I've carefully tucked them out of sight in dropdowns so interested people can learn something about me without the boxes bothering every casual reader who passes by the user page. - Dravecky (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More than a year and a half ago, I was indefinitely blocked as a sock of a banned user. There was a proposed ban of someone making legal threats. I thought the user was a bad user but that we needed to point out the exact phrase used and consider whether it was or was not a legal threat. This was because the ban discussion was degenerating into a "I don't like this user" discussion. Immediately, someone wrongly thought this was defending a bad user and concluded that anyone that defends another user must be a sock. Even the two administrators proposing the ban did not think I was a sock. It took months to get unblocked. The wisdom of the unblock has been proven with over a year of good editing.
I see your comment on a RFA which states "Virtually 100% edit summary use since the word go". If someone were mean (and this happens often in Wikipedia), an administrator could say that this is evidence that the person is a sock and that Thehelpfulone should be blocked. I wish Wikipedia is not so harsh a place. I am slowly warming up to Wikipedia but being mistreated is traumatic. Occasionally, I even question whether I should donate my time and contributions to Wikipedia because of this. Healing is a slow process.
I'm going to take my time and work a response to this. As an immediate reaction I would say that there are many times I rue the day I signed up. But there are many times I'm so glad I can help. Pedro : Chat 20:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is much I can add to my statement above. I can only assure you that despite certain injustices and poor admin actions, generally WP is only as bad as you make it. I see your point about editors who seems unreasonably knowlegable from the word go, but WP:AGF says that there are many reasons for this (editing as an IP, experience on ther wikis etc). I hope you continue to warm to the place, and feel free to use me as a sounding board anytime. Very Best. Pedro : Chat 08:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) TheHelpfulOne22:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies
From an IP very recent - pretty much less than an hour. Remember that many IP's are shared or dynamic, so blocking can have an effect on an individual who was actually trying to help. If there is long term IP abuse then that's different - but it's best dealt with at WP:ANI for a full consideration. Remember blocking is preventative - unless there is activity right at the time of reporting then we are not really preventing harm to the encyclopedia. Pedro : Chat 09:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I understand that IPs can be shared. I thought this might qualify because ALL of the edits were vandalism -- to me it seemed enough of a pattern, since there's no indication of any constructive edits from this IP. Auntof6 (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question.... why are the reasons behind deleting the "Explicit Error" page? I made sure all the necessary information for the wiki on one of my favorite notable musicians was correct and listed properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.71.42 (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page did not assert any notability - MySpace and his home website are not reliablethird party sources that prove why this DJ is notable. I'll be pleased to recreate the article as a sub-page of your user space to work on, providing you can verify third party sources demonstrating the importance of the subject. Pedro : Chat 21:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NPWatcher
Hi Pedro, over a week ago I added my request for NPWatcher here, but to no avail. Since you're one of the administrators that commonly patrols that page, I'm wondering if you could tell me what other qualifications I should have to be approved for NPWatcher. I've patrolled over 300 pages[1] and I know 'the policy'. Thanks for your time, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ(talk)16:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This NPwater business - is this a macro or script that I am unware of, or a flag?. Lately, I've been delving back into the world of NPP, so it may be useful. Care to grant access? Wisdom89(T / C)18:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to say - nah, it's a nice GUI that lets you look at th enew page feed and semi automagically slap on CSD, AFD, PROD basically. Probably no substitute for old school style, but let me know how you get on with it. Pedro : Chat 20:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rollback
MessagefromXENUu, t has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
The reason for sockpuppetry is that I left my computer open. I will never trust the Wikipedia community like this again, not let anybody else do so, and will treat the Wikipedia community potentially seriously, no sockpuppetry of indefinitely blocked users or IPs. Any more sockpuppetry destroys Wikipedia. MHLUtalk21:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll see what I can find about the circumstances of your block, but I still would appeciate other admin / non admin input regarding your request at the request page. Pedro : Chat 21:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please tell me why my user page signifies I've semi-retired? If it is the template, you've looked at the wrong page. MHLUtalk23:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used to have another one before that! I changed to Pedro1999a for privacy reasons and then usurped Pedro - it's almost impossible these days to get any "real" names unless you usurp as they've all been registered already. Pedro : Chat 07:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for saving the article for deletion (or rather, taking notice of my objection). On a side topic, it's interesting how those vandals who create random pages never use the {{hangon}} template on the pages they create. Cheers! Vltava68(contribs)) 01:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most welcome. The big bad admins don't delete everything!. One of the key things for me is the under-construction tag - that shows an experienced editor and there is no excuse to speedy articles under construction unless the tag is used in bad faith or the article is blatant spam/attack etc. Good luck with the article! Pedro : Chat 07:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
canceled. I wasn't feeling the readiness, and J was concerned about a bad GA I passed a while back. Anyway, thanks for your advice. I asked for a simple deletion of the page and now I don't think I'll ever commit myself to adminship. I'm thinking about avoiding it for a long, long time. Too much dramahz. Besdides, I'm becoming active on Commons. Anyway, thank you so much. (I am not retiring, at least not anytime soon ;p) —Ceran♦♦ (speak)22:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. If you'll read carefully, you'll notice I never said I would block him. That said, MF posts on quite a few project pages I'm involved in, and has spent quite a bit of time badmouthing me. I'm tired of it, and I expect someone to do something about it if it continues. Gimmetrow23:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't dispute MF is rude and uncivil (by WP standards)...". This civility issue is one that I don't understand, and that I will never accept. Time for me to move on. --MalleusFatuorum00:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should I have put the key phrase "by WP standards" (i.e. not by mine) in italics, large text or a flashing font for you to read it as it is obviously meant, given our past interaction? Pedro : Chat 00:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I knew what you meant. I believe, and I will always believe, that disagreement is healthy. In our particular case I believed that you had made a mistake, and had not recognised that mistake when I pointed it out to you. I may have been wrong, you may have been wrong, doesn't matter now. What matters is that wikipedia's sad civility policy simply hides dishonesty behind a virtual smile. Not for me. I realise that I'm in a very small minority, those who value honesty above civility, and that my time here may be necessarily limited as a result, but so be it. I won't be the loser. --MalleusFatuorum00:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generaly, when I refer to policy I do it via a blue link or I clarify. Otherwsie it's a dicdef of the word. I'm in the small minority that feel civility and honesty are not two sides of the same coin but can be used in equal measure. However I speak from a business prespective. I regret getting involved in this spat, but wish neither party any ill feeling and hope both will recognise their individual importance to the work, and more importantly we are all peers . Bloody hell, that's a Jimbo statement :) Pedro : Chat 00:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completly respect your decision on not granting me access to the Rollback permission. I was previously unaware of the undo feature so I thank you for this peice of insight. For now I will use the undo to fight vandalism and maybe when I become more of a respected wikipedian I will send in my request again.
It's better not to delete WP 1.0 assessment categories under criterion C1. These are certainly categories that "by their nature may become empty on occasion". Only if it is no longer to populate an assessment category using the template should it be deleted. This isn't entirely your fault; the categories were tagged as C1 candidates. But really assessment categories have to be handled by an admin on a case by case basis rather than by CSD tagging. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No probs, but they are easily recreated and if tagged and empty (under "what links here") I guess it's marginal one way or the other. Point noted though and thanks for the heads up. Pedro : Chat 21:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My round
Have a beer on me.
Let the amber nectar flow all day and night. Let it run down the mountains and through the caverns and across the rich lawns to swamp the streets. Let it rain beer. Let the heavens open and shine forth beer. Let it all be beer. Wonderful beer. And let it be as deep as the heart of a lion.
I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to co-nominate me for admin and to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Again, I feel like I'm swimming in a sea of stupid. Some things will never change... and by "some things", I mean "anything on Wikipedia". لennavecia14:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Pedro. :) I wanted to apologise for not having answered your e-mail until now. I am really sorry, however I simply had no time. I'll try to reply as soon as possible — though I'm afraid it will take another week or so. :( Hope that's okay. Best wishes, —αἰτίας•discussion•20:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it meant a lot to you, think how upset I was knowing I was the reason you left - what a cock up on my part. Seriously good to see you back. Pedro : Chat 22:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there: Just a quick note to say that I'm alive -- I had some surgery on my hand that didn't go well, so I'm going back for another bout under the knife, but in the meantime I'm barred from typing, which pretty much keeps me from Wikipedia. I'll be back when I can. In the meantime, all the best to you and yours... Accounting4Taste:talk00:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamental distrust based on numerous on and off wiki conversations, and reading between the lines of recent debacles and apologies by Jimbo. I try not to give much weight to off wiki, but at times it becomes unavoidable, sadly. Pedro : Chat 07:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to stick my nose in uninvited here, but although I also opposed the candidate for similar reasons, I think it's unfair to him that you say he allegedly has already abused his positions of power. Seeing as how Cool Hand Luke's candidacy almost went off the rails because of unclear allusions to unethical behaviour, I'm not sure it is fair to WJBscribe that you simply allude to misconduct. Others are likely to be influenced by your statement; would you consider either substantiating the allegation, removing it, or clarifying that it is information that you are not willing to make public but that you vouch for? Skomorokh13:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your time in requesting this but there are two key pharses in my oppose;
personally believe
IMO (obviously the abbreviation for "in my opinion")
I have no need to substantiate personal feelings. Further, WJB has made it abundantly clear on his talk that people are free to oppose for whatever reasons, including personal ones [14]. If others are influenced by my vote (how refreshing to use the term without an exclamation mark at the front I might add!) then that is disapointing. We are not building consensus here, we are voting. I would not vote for certain parliamentary candidates based purely on my personal perception of how they conduct themselves, and I would not have to justify why I would not vote for them either. If this was any other area of Wikipedia I would expect to be challenged and either put up evidence or shut up - however in these elections there is no requirement to justify my position. Apologies if that is not the line you wanted me to take.Pedro : Chat 13:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although the promotion of ^demon against common consensus was with out doubt an on wiki clear cut abuse of his powers, when he let his personal desires overtake his role of establishing consensus. Pedro : Chat 13:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm not going to complain however you feel like voting. I couldn't help but think though that you would get eaten alive for a similar comment at RfA, but your stance on the requirements of the elections clarifies this point. I interpreted your comment to mean that you had some hidden information that regular voters couldn't not be expected to have access to, but your ^demon comment perhaps suggests otherwise. Do you mind if I ask whether the abuse you refer to could be knowable by observation of on-wiki occurrences? If so, I have no real qualms. Thanks for you forthright response. Regards, Skomorokh13:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for your calm responses and gentle enquiry - yes if that was RFA I certainly would have been beaten back and forth!! My other concerns reflect information seen on WP and Wikipedia review, mostly around Giano II and FT2, and concerns that WJBScribe knew that edits were oversighted for no other reason than to remove embarassment. Now there's a tonne of debate about what oversight is for and maybe it was a valid use. I don't care to be honest. I do care that the information indicates WJB sat by passively and in full knowledge whilst checkusers and oversighters misused tools. As an admin, 'crat and possible arbcom member he is partly a representative of the community and bound to the will and good of the community. I believe he only represents himself and his own interests. Note this is all my own "belief" based on scattered evidence - but enough evidence for me to feel that AGF is topped by the good of Wikipedia - and having WJB on arbcom is most certainly not good. Pedro : Chat 13:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Nothing then, a reasonably addicted Wikipedian should not be able to come to by their own investigation. Your vote initially had me wondering whether WJBscribe was an Archtransit sock or something of similarly salacious proportions! Thanks for your patience and clarity. Regards, Skomorokh14:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a good idea to remove this edit that resulted in the automatic block of the IP. I am sure the relevant people have looked at the edit and dont need proof, anyway they can contact an admin if they want to look at it. Up to you Monster Under Your Bed(talk)13:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a horrible feeling there may be too many revisions for me to delete and selectively restore (there's a limit - think it's 5,000) I'll check! Pedro : Chat 13:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About IP address you blocked
Hi! Thought you ought to be aware that there is an issue regarding the ip address you blocked being discussed at WP:AN. This address has already been blocked twice today, and has been lifted whilst the problem is resolved. You might wish to review the block; I had blocked the other IP address beig discussed, and released it when I realised it was affected by the same problem. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "extremly positive interaction with the candidate" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TheHelpfulOne is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
