...a strange and unsettling development at Enigma's RfA. I've read the talk page, but I somehow feel I'm missing the big picture. Care to enlighten me in case I decide to weigh in? Also, despite that it's placed..err.."on hold'..are !votes allowed to be cast.. because I don't foresee my opinion changing. Wisdom89(T / C)00:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After having tried to reach a page titled Ṱ, I noticed that you have deleted all of the following redirects to Circumflex: Ḙ, Ḽ, and Ṱ. Why is that? Ḓ, which has a circumflex below, redirects there, as does Ṷ, too (plus lots of other characters with circumflex above). I think it's pretty common practice to redirect a character to the article on its diacritic, if nothing more specific is written on it. The reason why I did try to access Ṱ, was that - being unfamiliar with the character and seeing it being used in a linguistic transcription - I just copied the character in my browser's address field preceded by en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ to find out what it is used for. Could you please restore the redirects back? Malhonen (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done You make a good point that a user might cut and paste from another document to find out about the character. Thank you. Pedro : Chat 11:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Admin coaching
Hi. I'm interested in beginning admin coaching, and noticed you have a slot open. Would you be willing to start coaching me? I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have regarding what I've done on enwp so far. Thanks! — TwinzorSay hi!16:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, all though I would warn that "coaching" has been seen to harm at RFA rather than help.....! In addition I'm not really into "go make twenty AFD contributions and I'll review" kind of coaching - more an informal discussion forum to review actions, for you to ask questions and really find your own feet with the odd bit of gentle guidance or input. If you're after something expansive or task based I'm not the guy. If you're hoping that it will increase your chances at RFA I'm also not the guy. But if you like the sound of a useful page to monitor and review your actions, where I can ask a few questions and where I can point you to the few bits you do need to know then I'm up for it. Let me know. Pedro : Chat 18:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I was hoping for. I'm not looking for a strict program to follow, but rather some helpfull pointers on what to pay attention to, get some feedback, and a place to ask questions or help when needed. All in all, what you're proposing sounds perfect. — TwinzorSay hi!19:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah see, that was the problem all along! You were talking with your tongue sticking out in the shape of a capital P. Explains everything. And don't worry B-man, iljv/ll. :-) Keeper | 7620:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Twinzor, I should point out that the odd interjection from Talk Page Stalkers is possible ....... :). I'll set up a page for us. Pedro : Chat 07:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I was never really a fan of huggle. Actually, I was never really a fan of any automated tool. Well, I do use Twinkle, but only for RFPP reporting really. Other than that, I only use rollback and undo. That simple. :-) Again, thanks for your edit. — RyanCross (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pedro! You have deleted the article in the past. Thought you may want to know that it has been recreated and to take a look at its current state of affairs. Best regards, gidonb (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pedro/Archive 33 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Pedro/Archive 33's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Pedro/Archive 33!
Could you review my question I left on CRG's RFA | here
This has to be terribly discouraging for CRG to read some of those oppose voters' reasoning. I haven't checked to see how you voted on him, but its a sad RFA. Its almost like the oppose voters are hazing him. I don't need but 5 minutes of your time, just 3 quick easy answers. Thanks Sentriclecub (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After rereading Peters talk page, I noticed you had said a few days ago you were awaiting communication from ARBCOM before a planned RfA. To be as short as possible, I cannot, at present, see why this is a necessary step. A motion was initiated August 31 2008 and passed September 1 2008 (diff) with the conclusion that either was permissable (through request for arbitration or by request for adminship). If you have time, I would like to know what exactly the hold up is? :D Synergy22:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well that is interesting. I emailed User:Deskana who was an active arbcom member, and whose post to ANI at the time of the events [1] indicated that only an approach to ARBCOM was acceptable. We have been indiscussion since (which I cannot discuss as it was by private email) but given that motion there seems to be no issues now. Pedro : Chat 07:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is - this is one that needs to be "by the book". If half way through some numpty from ARBCOM wades in with "they can't run" we just get mega drama on "community v arbcom" etc and the RFA fails. I'm really glad you found that link (curse me for being too lazy and not looking!) as given current ARBCOM performance we would still be waiting in July 2011 for permission if I asked. Thanks for the heads up. Pedro : Chat 20:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, I would have hunted them all down (the sitting arbs) to make sure Peter had a second chance. The best way to cut through the drama, is to nip it in the bud as soon as possible. I was one step away from filing a request for clarification, when that link fell on my lap. <cracks open a beer> Here's to 2011! :) Synergy21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(already on the plonk actually!) The interesting thing is that 3 arbs commented in support, and Calisber mentioned that they had been discussing this (I asked Deskana to forward my email which he obviously did). The RFA is actually less drama fuelled than I feared, but I did want certainty that there would be no "procedural" opposes - that diff was a darn good find my man. Pedro : Chat 21:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was slightly involved back then, and I remembered a number of us were concerned with future events (on ANI). Just happy to have helped, and thanks for taking this initiative. Synergy01:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - trying to fix PS's RFA, hit the wrong button thinking there was another old page after the move, went for a ciggie and then came back to find a redlink at the top right of my interface - DOH! Pedro : Chat 21:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro on left, Kanonkas in the middle. Ryan Postlethwaite to the right
Thank you Pedro for nominating me - I successfully made it. Is there anything you would like to recommend to a new admin? *Cough* same signature again. --Kanonkas : Talk 17:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.
Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.
It's over *deep breath*. I am absolutely shocked at how well it went, and the constructive feedback I received in all three sections. It went so much better than I ever imagined it would go. Just want to thank you personally for putting your faith in me again. Had it not been for your gentle prodding, that link would still be red, because when I returned I never thought of going back to RfA again. I won't let your trust (and the trust of others) go to waste again, that I can assure you of. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk)23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost 200 supports. Yes, I have to say I anticipated a slightly rougher ride, but after the first two days it was clear where it was heading. Welcome back to the tools! Pedro : Chat 07:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Cabal
Cheers! Somebody had to do it. Might get the sockpuppets away, for a day, or two.
As did I. holy crap! Man, I didn't quite make the list, did I? I guess content contributors (who are non-admins) don't make the cut? *winks at all those sockpuppets* Ceran→//forge17:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what the man with the founder bit can see. I'm guessing he knows when the socks are sleeping, he knows when they're awake, he knows when they've been bad or good... Davidwr : Chat 20:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've hopefully calmed down a little Pedro,[2] I just wanted to say that I had no intention of making a "snide" remark, I just regarded it as half-serious throw-away comment to provoke some thought.
I had no intention of belittling the work you do as an administrator, and nor would I ever do that. I'm upset that my jokey comment offended you, and for that I apologise. --MalleusFatuorum16:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite prepared to discuss with you what number of armed administrators are required to deal with a rather smaller number of active editors than the millions too often touted about. But not here.
Please note as well that I'm not apologising for my point of view, but for inadvertently having caused offence by voicing it inappropriately. --MalleusFatuorum16:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an apology is needed, except from me. I mis-read your comment. As we all know a text based medium is far from ideal as it does not come naturally to human beings. If you'd made the remark over a nice pint of beer then I would never have made a similar response. Of such minor misinterpretations are Wikipedia not made...:) Again, no apology is needed but thank you for taking the time to follow this up, and no hard feelings I hope. Pedro : Chat 20:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Pedro, this discussion is not finished. Malleus professes to believe that no more administrators are required to "deal with" other users; however, he seems to be unaware that the vast majority of admins serve more in their capacity as janitors than anything else, and that most "drama" is caused by a very small minority of our admins. This by no means indicates that we should have less admins, and Malleus' viewpoint is one that I'm always disheartened to see. There is always more work to be done, more backlogs to be dealt with, more articles to be slogged through, and it is hardly appropriate to simply lump us all together and say that no more help is needed. GlassCobra23:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion may not be finished but the relevance of the thread is. I missed a smiley that implied irony and I apologised for it. I agree, totally, we need more capabale and active admins. I'm now not clear on Malleus' stance on whether or not we do. I'm sure Malleus will give his input. Pedro : Chat 23:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← Well, I'll just say this. My view is that wikipedia would no better or worse off if half of the current admin corps was randomly desysopped. Too many administrators seem to have regarded the position as a goal in itself, and too few seem to take their responsibilities seriously. Like it or lump it, that's my firm belief. --MalleusFatuorum23:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Malleus, I know that's what you believe; I stated in my first reply to you that I've seen you state as such multiple times in several locations. However, my reply above states precisely why I believe you are incorrect, and why it saddens me to see you espouse this view. I appreciate you apologizing to Pedro, as I'm sure he does; however, please do not toss your remarks away as "half-serious throw-away" remarks when are clearly not. GlassCobra23:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there; thanks for the note. I had surgery for Dupuytren's contracture -- figured I might as well improve knowledge by letting people learn about it if they wanted to. The first one went somewhat poorly, the second one better. But, as you can imagine, after 22 stitches my hand doesn't stand up to long periods of typing. So I've just been doing a little new page patrol and stopping when I'm worn out, trying to build up my strength. Everything else is fine, though, and I expect to be back in full typing swing soon, so I'll look forward to seeing more of you!! In the meantime, my best to you and yours, and thanks for the good wishes. Accounting4Taste:talk19:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Pedro! I remember you from about 7 months ago and I just wanted to say thanks for the help you gave me on my coaching page! If you would like, I would like to ask you if you would like to be my admin coach? Cheers, Razorflame15:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I can help, but as ever, I'll give you the big warning up front. I don't do coaching to help people pass RFA. I do mentoring, in the hope that when you pass RFA you will be an effective and cautious administrator. I'm also not into task based "go and comment on twenty AFD's and I'll review" type coaching - I don't like it - Wikipedia is not a classroom and RFA is not a test. But if you want a sub page where you can bounce queries off me, or discuss situations after the event, with a view to what you could/should have done if you had admin tools at your disposal I'm you're man. If you'd prefer more direct coaching then you might want to hit up someone else. Let me know. Pedro : Chat 15:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand exactly what you are saying. If you want, I could set up a separate subpage for use between you and me...would you like me to do that? Cheers, Razorflame17:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summary
Regarding this edit summary, obviously I'm not going to take offense or pick a fight, but what we're you going for with it? I originally read that edit summary as "You just now figure that out, Useight?", but upon further consideration, it could have been more like "Finally! Someone points out what Keepscases should have said a long time ago." I'm going to assume it was the latter. Useight (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been informed in the past that apparently little smiley faces impart intent better than words. Clearly not. Yes, the second part as per the smiley and the ec'd comment below. Pedro : Chat 21:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW as I see you removed the talk back - "really Useight, you think :)" when I expressed an identical view as yours at exactly the same time seems, whilst self-evidently open to misinterpretation, to be devoid of any malice if you reviewed the surrounding couple of comments and time stamps. I can, of course, assure you that it was a jokey sarcastic comment and of course apologise if you took it to be anything other than that. Pedro : Chat 22:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the little :) or :P do do their intent, although I don't use them very often. Also, don't think that I actually thought you had ill intent, you're one of the absolute last people I'd expect to go around making snide comments. When I saw the summary I basically thought, "Huh, what the? Oh, nevermind, got it." It just took a second to click. The smiley thing did do something to alleviate confusion, but there was a potential for confusion there. No need to apologize, I didn't take it as anything but jokey sarcasm. I'm as hard as nails. No harm, no foul; proceed as if I hadn't intervened. Useight (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that edit summary implies that you already thought I was dumb to some degree. Speaking of jokey sarcastic edit summaries...Useight (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was this directed toward me, or toward Keeper? "BTW. Keeps, a graphical representation of flagged revs was placed on you rpag etoday to help out - because I guarantee the the rights bit of that will beat WT:RFA into a small hole in the ground when it comes to pointless discussion." Either way, I'd appreciate an explanation. Keepscases (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was to me, Keepscases. I had asked a question about flagrevs on my talkpage, and he made a handy little chart (you can see it on my usertalk. Pedro regularly calls me Keeps. I call him Peds. I know, I know, get a room right? Keeper | 7604:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And to be honest "placed on your page today" might give a clue that I wasn't talking to you, as I hadn't posted anything to your talk. Pedro : Chat 07:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you stopped vandalism on Jimbo Wales' userage on January 28, 2009 by temporarily full-protecting it. Even though the protection was only for two hours, the sockpuppet vandalism stopped. So I am giving you this barnstar for doing something to stop an uncontrollable vandal. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 00:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pedro, I was wondering if you would be willing to be my coach for the admin coaching program. I'd like the coaching to learn about how I can improve as an editor, and learn from my mistakes. I know I will have to get more heavily involved in article work, but I think I can definitely do that. I put my request on the page, but seeing the backlog, I asked User:Juliancolton, he initially accepted, but is now telling me he might take a wikibreak in the near future, so on the recommendation of several editors via IRC, I decided to ask you. Thanks--Res2216firestar19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. I've already got a couple of people on at the moment - as I've said before I don't really do "coaching" - I think it's better to have an informal sub-page to bounce around ideas, share experiences and ask what to do "after the fact" as it were. I'm allways happy to discuss thing like that, but formal "coaching" is not my style. Pedro : Chat 10:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I meant "mentor" and not coach (this was what Lara's role was). But I've been turned down so many times for mentoring that I'm beginning to think they're right. So yes, for the lulz. :) Synergy16:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't know where I stand with Keeper anymore (I don't hate the guy or anything, we just haven't spoken in a long time). Its a shame really. We butt heads whenever we meet. One day I hope we can just get back to "getting along". Synergy16:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - apologies - that was a light hearted comment (plenty of people have already told us to get a room!). I didn't know you and him wern't getting on too well, shame - you're both quality people. Pedro : Chat 16:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Well, I'm still looking for a coach/mentor, tried several people, no luck, still waiting for a reply from KnightLago though, and JC said he might have less wikistress and be active enough to coach me (as he does) soon. Let me know if you're open to being a casual "mentor" as a third option anyway. Thanks--Res2216firestar16:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be prepared to help with this admin coaching lark. I think I've got a pretty good handle on what not to do before an RfA, and that seems to be the most important aspect of surviving the ordeal.</joke> --MalleusFatuorum23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<serious>That's why I don't do coaching to pass RFA - but how to use the tools if you pass. There is a distiinction, as you are aware. </serious> Pedro : Chat 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your approach of giving gentle feedback works just fine, and nobody could object to that. It's a sad fact though that anyone could learn how to pass an RfA just by looking a few recent RfAs and doing whatever it is that the opposers recommend, and not doing whatever it is that they object to. Doesn't matter what the supporters say. Three months later job done, and they're off the leash. I suspect the mistake that I and many others made was that we had no thought of adminship, and so we just did whatever we did because we thought it was the right thing to do and bugger the consequences ... I'm rambling ... I only popped in to lighten the mood and now I've come over all serious as well. Ah well. :-) --MalleusFatuorum23:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<joke>And I just found about the too serious type</joke><serious>KnightLago declined, citing my high level of experience in anti-vandalism work, saying: "you have very little to no experience in actually working on articles or participating in other areas." I disagree, see my reply to him on my talkpage, but I accept his decision, and was wondering if you could drop in and start using your more casual method.</serious> Thanks--Res2216firestar22:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The route to succeeding at RfA is very clear. Someone should write an essay along the lines of Giano's Fools guide to writing a featured article. Basically, the longer you're here, and the more time you spend working on articles, the less your chances of ever getting through RfA. So the clock's ticking. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum22:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About a year ago I said that anybody with more than 10K edits probably would never pass an RfA... now a few are, but I agree... the space to become an admin is constantly shrinkin.---I'm Spartacus!PoppaBalloon03:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfA thanks
Thank you for your comments on my RfA (which passed 70/7/3) and for choosing to trust me by not opposing despite your misgivings. I do take your concerns about my experience seriously, and even partly agree with them, and can assure you that I will act with due circumspection on all matters administrative while I figure things out. I can only hope that I never act in a way that makes you feel your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 00:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you removed this [[3]] entry from the WP:AIW list. Ok, the person did not vandalize anything TODAY, but the last one was yesterday - seems recent enough to me. If you look at his contributions, they are nothing but vandalism for which he has received numerous warnings and two blocks. Does someone need to catch him with the hand in the cookie jar to warrant an action? T96 grh (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, yes they do have to catch them with their hand in the cookie jar! As per the instructions at WP:AIV the vandal has to be currently active (admins have different takes on "currently" but we are talking hours not days). The IP resolves to Comcast so it is likely to be dynamic - ie. it is not the same person each time. Also, blocks are preventative not punative - blocking an IP with no edits in hours is likely more harm than help. If it's an account that may be different, but never an IP. Apologies, but if you ask almost any admin they would never have blocked in this instance - and those that would would be in error. I appreciate you warning vandals and reporting and it is no slight on your goodself that this did not result in a block. Pedro : Chat 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the heads up. It's my first time going after a vandal. I just thought it seemed obvious that every single edit from this IP was reverted as vandalism and most of those seem to be about some of his Hillside High School classmates from Marlborough, MA. T96 grh (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having faith in my abilities as an editor/vandalism remover. I certainly hope not to let you, or any of the admin-team, down. I'll continue to revert only obvious vandalism and do due-diligence when the vandalism is not so obvious. Also I'll review the docs concerning RBK before I utilize it. One quick question though: did you manually or automatically archive your talk page? e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I just just curious. I doubt I'll have that issue with a large talk page anytime soon! I "think" I know all the ins-and-outs of different tools/templates/formatting and I always find new things to learn about. Thanks for the links! :) e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adminship
Hey, I was actually considering running earlier, but given your commment, I'd probably be better to wait :) It is, after all, five months today since the desysop. Majorlytalk20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd support you. I wish you'd stop being so hard on others, and I wish you'd stop been so argumentative over the smaller things. It not only makes my support easier, it actually might mean the community would agree with my thoughts that we're better of with you having the bit than otherwise. Pedro : Chat 20:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh. It really irritates me that he has done this multiple times, like this is some sort of game. I'm just tired of it really. I don't understand the rest of your comment, btw. My arguments would make your support easier? Majorlytalk20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about some stuff at WT:RFA I glanced over, but I don't have full recollection of what you did or said - which is probably the point actually. If the community wants to "turn the knife" they will generally half-remember incidents and then go looking. I'm preaching to the choir here I guess as you know this :). Sufficent to be said that I think you need the tools back - but I suspect the community would not yet grant them Pedro : Chat 20:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with Pedro... while I would fight for you to get them back... it could be nasty because you are outspoken. I suspect that an RfA for you might turn out like the RfB for me... we are (in many ways) opposite sides of the same coin. ;-) ---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon20:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it's not opened, but I think this proves my point about how unstable he is, and how unsuited for adminship he is. We can't simply go round +sysopping people, just because they happened to resign on a "good day". He's had a long history of all the things I said he did, and he's lucky he lasted this long as an admin, if I'm honest. He should never have been made an admin after he made his last edits with Jaranda - Raul's promotion was a mistake.
Well, me and AGF are often a bit too close.... I'm sad about this, but FWIW yes, Majorly, I guess this is evidence of a poor temprament from Secret. Wether it made him unsuitable to be an admin is another debate, however I guess it is all somewhat moot now. Pedro : Chat 22:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing useful will come from further debate - no guidelines, no precedent, no lessons learned no thoughts changed. But yeah, some fool will think we can carry on beating the deceased equine.... It would be lovely to be proved wrong for once. Pedro : Chat 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my place to guide or dictate community discussion.It was only that thread and the sub threads that needed knocking on the head. Pedro : Chat
BN comment
In relation to this comment, how was A Nobody's opinion not relevant? If a number of users object to someone being regranted adminship, surely that person should have to run through RFA? Sure, this was only one person, but he had valid concerns.--Pattont/c22:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bevause the discussion was not a reconfirmation RFA. The discussion was whether Secret could be resysopped without RFA. As I made abundently clear several times comments on his ability would have been relevant and welcome at a reconfirmaion RFA but not at a discussion as to whether he could be resysopped dependent on if he had, or had not, left "under a cloud". Forgive my ire, but I'm frustrated that people cannot read discussions and comprehend these differences. Pedro : Chat 22:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But former admins who lack the confidence of the community should not be resyssoped, A nobody was saying he did not have confidence in him...--Pattont/c23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good for him. What relevance does that have? If you want a desysop procedure go get consensus. If you want a procedure that says all sysops who relinquish the bit without force go through reconfirmation go make one. If you want a policy that says all cheese is made of gerkin go do it and we'll get consensus or not. The point, really, is simple - the conversation was not about Secret's ability to be an admin. It was about wether he could simply request the bit back. How is this complex? It doesn't now matter as he's left, but if he had got the bit and you and A nobody felt it was unacceptable then there are (sadly limilted) ways to deal with it (RFC, ARBCOM). A discussion at BN or 'crats right to re-grant is not the right place. Dear me Patton, can you honestly not see the difference here?? Pedro : Chat 23:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think making him an admin despite clear evidence showing pattern of misuse of tools and silly behaviour, would be a totally unwise thing to do. Good thing the bcrat declined. If the details had not been brought up, the bcrat may not have even been aware. It makes sense to point out things that suggest the person is unsuited to be an admin. I know your answer already, but I'll ask anyway: would you support returning the flag to a former admin turned vandal, who played good for a week? By your definition "if they resigned uncontroversially, then of course", they would be made an admin. Brilliant! Majorlytalk23:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too late Pedro, I'm afraid you're a hopeless case. Been an admin too long see? Does terrible things to your ability to do what it was that attracted you here in the first place. Improve articles. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum23:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to say that you are right/wrong about Secret, Majorly, but I don't think that is the role that we selected people to 'crat for. A 'crats job is to guage consensus, strenght of argument, and to click a few buttons. It is not to legislate new policies. If Secret shouldn't be an admin, then we need to take him to RfC/ArbCOM and get the community to rule on that. I am very uncomfortable with telling the 'crats that if an admin resigned in good standing and hasn't done anything vagrant since they resigned, that the 'crat should unilaterally decide that the person shouldn't be an admin. (Now this is all different if the admin resigned and went on a vandalism/edit warring spree.) That is not the role the 'crats were elected to. A 'crats job, IMO, requires less thought than that of an admin---they are there primarily to guage consensus. (I would also support changing the current rules/policy, but I don't support doing so without warning on specific individuals.) Of course, I also want to see people moving in and out of adminship a lot easier. Eg, a mechanism to remove the bit from somebody for a month or two at a time rather than permanently. I don't like how hard it is to get the bit, nor do I like how hard it is to remove it.---I'm Spartacus!PoppaBalloon18:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'll expand on that. If I recall correctly I first found Wikipedia from the BBC website. I created an account and did some minor bits (lovely unreferenced edits to Marmite as it goes). But, as is my wont, I started to delve. Even today I spend more time using and reading Wikipedia than editing it (I hack text for proposals at times). So, there is a deep question - why do I keep it up. Now I've given much verbage (and garbage) about bettering society, doing it for my kids etc.. Fundamently I do it to relax and distract, with the added bonus of creating an enyclopedia. Is that wrong? Should I do it for the love of giving away information? Perhaps - but then it may become a chore. And if it is a chore I might not want to do it. Maybe I have had the tools too long, become jaundiced and disillusioned. Maybe not. But whilst my edits please me and make the work better then I should continue. I might owe it to my children, and my children's children. But I want to do it, and do it right. ere, eye's the point. Pedro : Chat 00:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered Wikipedia way before I started editing it. I had no idea that you could edit it. I discovered the ability to edit through Uncyclopedia - a friend of mine created an article there (long since deleted), and I thought I'd do one better uncyclopedia:10 Downing Street. I then must have been browsing Wikipedia one day and noticed the same edit links as on Uncyclopedia - I noticed some people missing from the left-handed list. Using a copy of Schott's Miscellany, I added three people. Unsourced of course, but at least it wasn't WP:NOR :) Those edits are long gone now. I got addicted through editing the Big Brother articles but I rarely edit them now. Majorlytalk00:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Pedro, it's not wrong; each of us contributes in different ways, for different reasons, and those reasons change over time. Speaking only for myself, I'm motivated solely by the idea of the sum of human knowledge being freely available to everyone. I don't have children, I'm not doing it for them, I'm doing it for us, the human race. It should be a noble endeavour but so often it doesn't seem that way, for reasons there's no need to dwell on here. --MalleusFatuorum01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the note on top of my talk page, could you kindly not refer to me as anything other than my current username? I do NOT refer to other users who have changed names by their old names (nor would I say refer to you as anything other than "Pedro"), I am letting things with regards to the now vanished user drop and whether you like me or not, referring to someone who changed names by his old name does not add anything constructive. I would in fact appreciate if you replaced the references to my old username with "A Nobody". I do not recall you as being someone I had past conflicts with so, I am not sure what gives today, but anyway, please honor this request and have an enjoyable evening! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk23:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's enlightening. I would be happy to refactor my comments, but, pray tell, what other names might you use to my account........ ET TU BRUTE? Pedro : Chat 23:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've refactored (I can't do the edit summary). BUT (back) please tell me The Uther (sic) names I've edited under. Too be clear U have my full permission to release them. Pedro : Chat 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Pedro's day!
For one of the most well-reasoned users around,
enjoy being the Star of the day, Pedro!
Hi, I just used rollback for the first time, and I need some feedback. I was checking Hawaii recent changes for vandalism, and found some strange edits from User:Native American Embassy on Customs and etiquette in Hawaii. Since these edits weren't vandalism, I reverted using the good faith feature in TW. However, I decided to check the users contribs, and found that they were spamming their personal website across multiple articles. After checking out the sites, it didn't appear to be very informative, and in some cases duplicated links and content that already appeared. As this user was spamming multiple articles, I decided to rollback all of their edits. Was I wrong to do this? Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking at the link, if it was spam that is one of the exact reasons for rollback - to be able to revert numerous edits by an editor very quickly. No problems. Pedro : Chat 12:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pedro. Picked you from the admin list just because I see your name all the time and you seem to know everything.
Had a situation over at the talk page for the Nile. An editor, a couple of weeks ago, openly wondered why the article was titled simply "Nile" and didn't have the word "River" in the title. Said he thought it should have the word river in the title. Only one person—yours truly—responded. I indicated that it was an interesting idea for a move, but that he should first obtain consensus for either "Nile River" or "River Nile" (I've heard both used often, though not as often as just "the Nile".) Anyway, you can check out the rest of the discussion, but the point is, he went ahead and made the move. I've left a protest note, explaining why this was unwarranted (and, quite truthfully, very uninformed as well), and I want the page moved back. The only problem is that I remember once, maybe three years ago, when I was still fairly new, I moved an article "back" after it had been moved, and I guess I messed up lots of stuff somehow. I don't want to do that, so I'm asking an Esteemed Administrator to do it for me. Is this the right approach? I thought about listing this at WP:ANI, but it says there that that page is reserved for serious issues, whereas this is hardly that. Anyway, can you help? Unschool02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I know everything! In fact I am sure I don't! Howeevr I will take a look, but it will not be until later this evening, for which my apologies. Pedro : Chat 17:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't hide the fact that I'm disappointed in your response, though it does nothing to cause me to question your integrity. I simply think you're mistaken. I've made additional comment at length over at Talk:Nile. I leave you with one question: I brought this to you because I believed that I was incapable, as a non-admin, of reverting Fishhead's move. So if I can't revert his move, where does the "revert" in BOLD, revert, discuss cycle come into play? Unschool06:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason you can't revert is that you can't delete the redirect to move the title over it. Sorry it's not the answer you wanted, but obviously I have t be impartial. Pedro : Chat 17:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, and I still trust your impartiality. Two questions: One, have you read my expanded comments at Talk:Nile, and two, would you agree that citing WP:BRD as a rationale for this move is somewhat pointless when the "R" in BRD has been cut out? The reason why I can't revert the move (and, incidentally, thank you for explaining that, I couldn't remember the reason it was a problem) is irrelevant, all that is important is the fact that I cannot revert. Therefore, BRD is stillborn, is it not? Unschool19:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BRD is not still born IMHO - but I do agree that you have a very valid point -to encourage WP:BRD and then find editors are hampered because they cannot exercise the revert part is an issue the guide overlooks. I skim read your comments earlier as I was short on time (my apologies) - I'll look now. Pedro : Chat 20:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most kind. There may be no deadline, but it is preferable to sort out issues such as these quickly and with the minimum of drama, so that we can all feel it was resolved well yet expeditiously. My apologies are that I am tired and need to prepare for RL work tomorrow, and I wish I could give full attention now. Pedro : Chat 22:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is an election, hence a vote, as you rightly point out. There is also a discussion section. Given the format of this (one which I disagree with as I feel that almost all non trivial granting of rights should involve discussion) I am more than entitled to make that comment. Please don't shove wikipedia policies in my face - you can expect I have read them. Lar is two faced in my opinion. It is not a personal attack. It is a statement of fact. Apologies if you disgaree with my point of view, but that's, well, tough. Pedro : Chat 20:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You will also note Lar has now withdrawn. Perhaps you'd do better commenting on my talk when you are in full possesion of facts as opposed to just wanting to thrust an all caps policy at me - one, incidentally, that you clearly haven't actually read. Enough said. Pedro : Chat 20:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro... You've made the same comments about Lar before, and got the same response. If you make them and don't provide a substantial amount of evidence, you should expect that some people will read it and see it as over the top and not justified. That's just simply how it will be read. I think Boris probably has read NPA - his previous account was an administrator. Avruch T 20:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diff where I said that about Lar before would be handy. (save you the time Avruch - you won't find it as it was never made) Pedro : Chat 20:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And "for the record" whether someone is an admin, was a former admin, is a steward, or is Jimbo Wales makes no difference in terms of my reading of their comments. All editors are equal and if they come to this page throwing NPA at me then I expect them to have a deeper understanding of the policy than was demonstrated above. Pedro : Chat 21:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking specifically about the Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence bit in the policy. If you were to give some evidence then I might even agree with you! In any event I apologize if I have somehow misunderstood the policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, look it's fair enough - and I appreciate your level headed response Boris - but if I said Adolf Hitler was a Nazi and killed lots of Jews then only the holocaust denialists would think I'm making a personal attack. I'm not trying to create a strawman here (I appreciate that kind of was one - oops!) but hear me out. I have strong conviction Lar is two faced and using Wikipedia for his own ends, over those of the ends of creating a credible enyclopedia - however if I start posting certain comments and views held by Lar they would be outside of our policies and guidelines on revaling personal information and far beyond my personal ethics on what should, or should not, appear on a website (particularly one with the ammount of traffic Wikipedia gets). I'm struggling to see the issue people - I made a comment. Much later and unrelated Lar withdraws. End of problem, surely? If it was that big a deal I would expect Lar to have commented. One might argue [who?] that the fact he has not, coupled with his withdrawal, means this conversation is moot? Pedro : Chat 21:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.. you've got concerns, so you feel the need to comment, but to give details would raise privacy issues. And people on the outside just see the comments with no justification. An awkward situation for all involved. If I knew how to unravel this sort of thing I'd be in the Diplomatic Corps instead of a science geek. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for it, but I'm pretty sure I've seen you make similar comments in the past. Where isn't coming to me off the top of my head, but it should be easy enough to track down if my recollection is correct. If it isn't, I apologize. Avruch T 23:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't found it. I have a pretty strong memory of reading similar comments, but since I can't recall where and can't find them, consider my comment above (the bit relating to this) withdrawn. I think describing it as a "blatant lie" is a bit strong. I may have been mistaken; I did not lie. Avruch T 23:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't. I think you'll find I've made similar comments regarding Kingturtle and WJBScribe if it helps your endeavours. Happy hunting Avruch. I pitty you, that you have nothing better to do than to look for non-existent comments to uphold your lies, as opposed to just admitting your mistake and moving on - as I gave you the opportunity to do. Sigh. If it gives you pleasure to look for something that is not there so be it. Pedro : Chat 23:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is it so complex for you that you made a statement that was untrue? A statement that is untrue is a lie. Why can you not grasp this? Why did you need to stalk my contributions to find out you lied? Why can you not give good grace and retire from this debate? Why can you not have the decency too only make comments grounded in fact? Why can you not see my frustration that your (no doubt well meaning) interjection here is foolish at best and malicious at worst? Dear me. Pedro : Chat 23:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a lie? You're probably right, and if you look at what I posted in reply on my own talkpage (before reading this comment), I linked to your comment about WJBscribe and noted that I probably was thinking of that. Being mistaken is not the same as lying; I apologize for being wrong, but I definitely did not lie. I'm sorry that your experience with Wikipedia over the last however many months its been have been so negative. I don't believe I've contributed to it, and I don't think you should take it out on me or Boris or anyone else who happens to question something you've said. Avruch T 23:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, being wrong != lying. I looked through your contributions (which took about 10 seconds, and a search for "wjb") to find out whether or not I was wrong, since you stated that I was. Seems like basic due diligence to me, so I could apologize knowing I had made an error. I'm not sure why it bothers you so much, or why you insist on thinking I was maliciously lying. I didn't accuse you of saying something you never said - I simply thought you had said it more than once. Avruch T 23:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to comment on my talk page. It's not mine and I welcome your input. And yes, I didn't want an unhappy ending either. But then I didn't start the story so I'm unlikely to be responsible for the end of it. Pedro : Chat 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind people reading WR, it's just not something I have the skill to do, sifting through a huge pile of manure to pick out the nugget (or is it fool's gold?) that might help me understand the Wikipedian community a little better. But when you say that Lars is corrupt and you strongly oppose Kingturtle in a very public place, and then you agree above that your opinions involve private and/or personal and/or privileged knowledge that you couldn't possibly share, you're dragging the pile of manure over here. Is there something you know that makes Lars unfit to be a steward and makes Kingturtle unfit to be a bureaucrat? I can't speak for other Wikipedian subcommunities, but RFA folks rely on both of those guys, and have to rely on them, so if there's something we need to know, say it. If there isn't, I guess I'm uncomfortable with your insinuation that there is, although I wouldn't say that I actually need some kind of resolution. It would be nice, though. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair I didn't "drag it over here". I've commented voted and commented on a few CU/Oversight requests. I stand by my statements but I don't wish to elaborate on them at this time. People should make their own minds up and ignore my posts - particularly in areas where it is explicitly a vote and not a comment / counter comment discussion. I can only assure you I am not opposing (or supporting) candidates for the sake of it, or out of some kind of "revenge" - simply for what I percieve to be in the best interests of Wikipedia. If what I perceive is wrong then that's fair enough. Pedro : Chat 16:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. A cup of tea, a bottle of wine, maybe a month off WP might be better. I promised to try and ignore the political Wikipedia crap and just plod along in isolation this year, and I've broken my promise - with regretable occurences. Pedro : Chat 16:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, please read what I wrote before responding to it. Spartacus indicated you might be thinking MySpace-y, not me, and I only responded to that. The irony of telling me to justify a statement I didn't make because it accuses you of a statement you didn't make does weird things to my blood pressure. WilyD16:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If Pedro means "MySpacey" he ought to say so.". I didn't, and the tone of that very much implied I did. Honestly, I hate this place. Pedro : Chat 16:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you
Thanks for your help on the Order of the Holy Paraclete article. I hope to return to Whitby soon to retrieve some more historic info to expand on this... Perhaps you may be able to help me to do so when the time comes?
with this comment: It's a shame I'm on a wikibreak. If I wasn't I'd be tempted to comment on the thread. Meantime, lets stop making bluelinks to various pages and throwing allcaps links around. Pedro : Chat 20:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Not trolling through AN history to find the diff. Hope all is going well for you :) StarM03:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Pedro. I'm 100% convinced that you've left because you miss me. At least, that's what I like to believe. My heart really knows it's Lara/Jenna. Be well, take care of your family - Keeper | 7604:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wisdom, I don't watchlist either but I got nudged toward the thread for some still unknown reason as I've never done anything with rollback. Pedro, welcome back. Keeper, you too -- you've been quiet lately. No A-Roid razzing? Also, might want a peek in on Dusti, he's currently a little stressed. Old habits and all that. TGIF all! StarM13:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - yes - feeling a lot more motivated to Wikipedia now. The script is linked from WP:RBK and I'm just wondering if it is a bit to WP:BEANSy to be there. I installed it to see what it does. Could wreck havock if misused on an editor with hundreds of edits to low traffic pages..... I'm trying to have a dig around the issues / perceived issues / non-issues re: rollback at the moment. Pedro : Chat 15:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good question my man. In answer, I was getting so frustrated that my attitude here was becoming way out of line - seeing malice in every comment rather than genuine questioning. A lot of WP issues brought up externally to WP also coloured my view of the project. Now, the interesting thing was the story that broke the other day about the British Conservative party and someone from the Tory HQ editing an article. I'm not bothered about the whole affair, but I defended Wikipedia in RL to colleagues, some of my team and to friends. That made me realise something - if you want to defend it you must believe in it. I allways did believe in the good of Wikipedia but sometimes you need to have it thrust in your face to realise why you justify it. Pedro : Chat 20:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your kind suggestion ed17, but from our own article .. Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from a young Earth creationist, Americentric, right-wing and Conservative Christian point of view. I do write in the English language so that's a plus. Other than that I could not disagree more with Conservapedia. I am agnostic at best, Richard Dawkins is probably one of the finest (a)theological writers IMHO, and Englishnot American (although I have a great deal of respect for Americans and some of their values, I prefer the Canadian mentality generally). Young Earth Creationism is..... well..... a viewpoint. So is Flat Earth. I guess you get my point on how much regard I have for that. Pedro : Chat 21:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness - just over six months now since Jeff left us to be with Isaac. A little reflection on that is probably good. Miss you Jeff. Pedro : Chat 22:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Eh?
Utter bollocks was someone's reply to reply to an oppose on an RFA recently... can't remember which one though...
Julian totally nicked it from that user. Ceranthor22:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What did I miss? As it happens I have several times this evening initially included the phrase "utter bollox" in one of my replies, but after a moment's reflection decided to remove it. Minor profanities are one thing, but the abuse of apostrophes is quite unforgiveable. I would never in a million years write "utter bollock's". --MalleusFatuorum23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...unless of course utter bollock is a character in a video game, in which case I might of course be tempted to write something like "utter bollock's bollocks are complete bollocks". --MalleusFatuorum23:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
…but you don't opine on Steward elections? They're pretty much over now anyway, but most people with links to Meta usually check them :) -- Avi (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really only interested in en.wikipedia. Whilst I don't doubt the valuable contributions the stewards make to this wiki, as well as the maney other sister projects, it really doesn't interest me to be honest. If I saw someone standing who I had exceptionally strong feelings about I might comment, but nomrally I barely cast a glance. Pedro : Chat 21:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smile!
A NobodyMy talk 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Mczack26
Hi Pedro, I did see that edit. However, I read the discussion between Mczack26 and the user he mistakenly reverted, and Mczack26's acknowledged his mistake rather than got aggressive in any way. As such, I decided to overlook the error and grant rollback. Hope that explains things. Best wishes. Acalamari18:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hands held high....
Yes it was a bad rollback but I feel, personally, that bad rollbacks, provided they don't happen to often, are OK and just prove we're human and that we make error's. I also feel it's important that people look at how the error was dealt with. After It was pointed out to me I apologised to the person who I had inconvienieced...
Edit
Just saw Aclamari's comment
No problems fellow editors - just sayin' as the phrase goes. I have no reason to doubt anyone's judgement but I did feel it important to note that if you had rolled back that edit it could be seen as very negative. No worries. Pedro : Chat 18:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry Pedro, you are more than welcome to ask about the thoughts behind a decision of mine. If you ever think I'm doing something wrong, let me know. :) Best wishes. Acalamari18:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that this can raise issues. But the majority of the time the articles are blatantly bad or vandalism, and so people can be spurred on to change Macromonkey (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, I edited out some small personal attacks in the comments you left on my talk page. While I agree with you about the underlying issue (I have no idea why Tom thought it was a good idea to lie to me on my talk page about a situation I knew nothing about!), I'd like very much if we could preserve a more friendly environment. Tom's an admin, of course, and been around for awhile, so it's better to avoid phrases like "you fool" and "idiocy". I have never been perfect in this regard, so I'm not trying to preach from on high, I'm just saying is all. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - apologies to all - however I don't think we should hold anyone in higher regard if they are an admin, and if you see idiocy you see it - but I agree it was unhelpful of me given the context. Pedro : Chat 21:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was impressed anyway. ;-) Less impressed though by yet another demonstration that administrators (Tom) are not held to the same standards they so frequently demand of their underlings. --MalleusFatuorum22:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators are no different from any other editor. I feel justified in warning him [5] as I would any editor - and as was doen by Jimbo to me. I agree my edit summary was not useful, and it's fair enough that I be pulled up on that; creating a bunch of lies and posting it on a highly visible talk page (Jimbo's) was even further under the standard we expect from anyone here - +sysop being totally immaterial. Pedro : Chat 22:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My highest is rather low (about 40?). Could never get the hang of that game (maybe it's the timer?). Shame really. My friend Zoe usually challenges me and racks up hundreds of points. Very embarrassing. PeterSymonds (talk)23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, not a "telling off" - I didn't intend it that way anyway. And I didn't mean to imply that as a sysop, he should have been cut any slack; I actually believe the opposite, sysops should hold themselves to the highest standard of behavior. What I meant, rather, is that he's not likely to be a fool or idiot, even though his behavior was not ok. And for the record, I suck at scrabble. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I was surprised to see an edit by Jimbo show up on my watchlist; I guess I've been watchlisting the wrong pages, or not enough pages. Useight (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just telling you the same as I've told User:Computerjoe and others - and I imagine you'd decided this yourself anyway - but posting on Beinghuman900's talk page is a waste of time as he repeatedly fails to see reason. His query to Jimbo will be archived soon so I reckon WP:DNFT is our best bet. Regards Hadrian89 (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, blocked for 31 hours. I suspect that this willbe the first of a few blocks before the indef. Sigh - he really did have a valid(ish) question - he just chose the wrong forum and the wrong way to ask it. Pedro : Chat 08:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While you're right that I did "admit" to gaming the system, I feel that that statement definitely misrepresents me and my intentions here. I spend a lot of volunteer time on here - improving articles, cleaning up, blocking vandals, helping new editors, and generally trying to make Wikipedia a credible place. Sure, I don't agree with some of you guys sometimes, and I've never been one to go out of my way to join any of the Wiki-clubs, except for Keep's now-defunct page (and that was through admin coaching). What did I game? Well, simply put, I needed Balloonman's support in my second RfA, or it was going to fail, regardless of my intent, knowledge, or performance. Was it malicious? No. Was it even totally fake? No. I identified the crux of the next RfA, and solved it. I don't know if my performance since then has disappointed you, and if it has, I hope you would come to my talk page and tell me what the problem is. I've always respected you as an editor and as an admin, and I truly want you to understand my reasons for being here. Tan | 3921:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand that you "gaming the system" was for good reasons. You feel you can do more with the admin bit, so you keep your nose clean, tow the party line, and get the bit. But to me the road to hell is pathed with good intentions. I have no issue with your actions, I respect the line you've taken on many occasions and have no call to question your judgement whatsoever. But you did game the system - and at some fundamental level I personally cannot agree that the ends justify the means - which seems to be your thoughts. You disagree - that's fine - but this I suspect reflects the cultural differences I'm so oft to comment on and not any personal issue. I supported your RFA and there is no quyestion my support is justified given the hard work and dedication you've put in - but would I support with hindsight? Probably not. Don't get me wrong though - I wouldn't support my RFA with hindsight either..... Pedro : Chat 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may be excused for butting in, I wouldn't even support my own RfA Pedro, never mind yours.</joke> I've been critical of Tan in the past for exactly the reasons you outline, although it would also be fair to say that I've got no particular reason to complain about him as an administrator; he's at least no worse than most, and he's had the honesty to admit to doing what pretty much every other admin candidate must have done. I have recently begun to wonder though whether there isn't a significantly bigger cultural divide between the US-centric editors, who are clearly in the majority, and those of us who live in other English-speaking parts of the world. There are ideals of fairness and tolerance which don't sit well with the way that wikipedia is currently being run, to my mind at least. --MalleusFatuorum22:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfA comment
Hi Pedro, I've been looking for an excuse to say hi to ya, and I found one. Per your comment here ... You could always just throw me a mop, and I'll help ... lol. Wouldn't exactly be due process though I guess. Well, I guess that's all I had to say - thought you might enjoy a smile. Other than I appreciate the tremendous work you do here. Have a good day/night. — Ched (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need an excuse to talk to me! If you see [6] you'll note we are now down to a low of 875 active admins (the highest was around the 1020 mark) - this means just 52% of all admins are "active" (which I think is defined there as 30 edits in three months). Alas I can't exactly through you a mop - but the community can.... :) Pedro : Chat 07:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
;) ... Well, I'll make due with my bucket and sponge as I learn about the finer points. I kick things up to AIV and WP:PP when I see them. I'll keep the RfA in mind for future reference, and who knows, maybe somewhere down the road I'll see you there. It's a real pleasure to meet you Pedro, I enjoy and admire what I see you doing here, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Have a great day/night — Ched (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot to add my opinion that you are not a softie. Instead, I would hazard to say that too many of our fellow admins forget the often highly-shared nature of IP addresses, and all too quickly spring straight to highly draconian blocks. Unless an IP is doing edits worthy of a 4im warning (as {{AIV}} says, "severe vandalism and defamation only"), I generally block for 24 hours if the IP had disregarded three or four warnings and this is their first block, of 12 hours if they received fewer than three warnings. However I still give 31 hour blocks when personal attacks or defamation are involved, especially on BLPs. Kralizec! (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me, a lot is based on the nature of the IP - a UK school IP vandalising at 4pm UTC only needs a three hour block as school will soon be finished. As you rightly state, persistent IP vandlaism (particularly repeated issues after a block) with BLP issues needs further locking down. WHOIS is my friend :) Pedro : Chat 22:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar!
Thank you for the barnstar, and for the nice comments about my response at Talk:Richard Fountain. I'm now thinking about turning it into an essay due to the number of first-time published authors who think getting their book in print means they've met the notability guidelines... Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for quickly granting me rollback. I sincerely hope to use it only appropriately. Please let me know if you see I have done something out of line. Again, thank you! Basket of Puppies18:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As always, my wise mentor, you did exactly the right thing -- this time, nothing at all. That particular teapot's tempest seems to have blown over and I've recovered my equilibrium. Many thanks for being -- well, mentor-y. Cheers, Accounting4Taste:talk00:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At RfA, I saw a mention of Tan(thalas39) "gaming the system" to get adminship. I can't see any "gaming," so could you clue me it on what happened? (I asked Tan about it; he said he didn't want to talk about it, and deferred me to you or Balloonman Spartacus) flaminglawyer01:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's no mystery that Tan ingratiated himself to the influential denizens at RfA after his first one failed. Tan readily admits this. Wisdom89(T / C)01:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm not offbase regarding what Tan and Pedro were referring to, but I'm fairly certain. Yeah, a kissass, and you know what? I would have done the same thing. Wisdom89(T / C)01:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its really sad that this is what it would come down to, but yes, there are times when its necessary (to be a kiss ass). Especially when you turn out to be a good admin. The only thing stopping you is that darn RfA group. :) Synergy05:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wisdom is correct. However this is a difficult one. On the one hand a fundamental part of me says that it's wrong to game the system this way, to project yourself as anything other than they way you are. That might be stuck up old school Britishness, I don't know. On the other hand there is the mantra of expediency - and Tan is an effective admin so one could argue that irrespective of how he got the bit it's been for the greater good of Wikipedia. Which is more important (projecting yourself in a manner that's not you v. Wikipedia) is probably up to individual peoples consience. I certainly do not wish Tan any ill will over it. Pedro : Chat 07:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a manner of speaking, one could point to IAR in cases such as this. Tan, and those who agree with his duplicity, feel strongly that +sysopping is for the net benefit of the project at minimal cost. If it takes a little posturing to help a qualified and extremely competent candidate become an administrator, then it's worth it. Wisdom89(T / C)19:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you draw the line in how much duplicity and dishonesty is justifiable in order to become an administrator? I'm afraid that I find the whole idea distasteful, and indicative of a rather under-developed sense of morality. Where would you say that behaviour such as that displayed by Tan would fit on this scale, for instance? --MalleusFatuorum20:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this is a Wiki, I don't feel a moral scale is applicable. You do have a point, although most of these so-called lines are vague and dubious. Wisdom89(T / C)20:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally believe "the ends justify the means". But that's my personal take. If Tan was less active then there would certainly be grounds to complian that he had sought adminship for its own sake, and that would be morally unjustifiable. However that's not the case. I don't really feel strongly about this to be honest - which may be a serious fault in my moral convistion.... or may just be a method of avoiding grief... :) Pedro : Chat 20:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So at what point does deception become a concern? Would it be a concern if I registered a sockpuppet with the express aim of keeping its nose clean and working in all of the adminy areas just to get it through RfA? Or would it depend on what I subsequently did with that sock? --MalleusFatuorum22:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can get that excited or motivated over people and the game playing for the admin bit on Wikipedia these days. I have increasingly become disillusioned with the place, to the point that whilst I may have an opinion I really don't care about how valid it is to anyone but me. People need to live with their own conscience. [Expressly excluding Tan, and several others with the following comment ---->] I've enough kids of my own to look after in real life without needing more during my brief moments of leisure...... Pedro : Chat 22:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't worry about anybody else's opinion but your own anyway : ) Besides, I worry about yours, and I'm sure there are others who concern themselves with mine. Wisdom89(T / C)22:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that excited about the games people feel it expedient to play so as to ensure a safe passage through RfA either, for much the same reasons as you, Pedro. But I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that we don't (or at least shouldn't) apply different standards of moral reasoning to different situations just because some are "less important" than others; that's a very dangerous path. I realize that once again I find myself in a very small minority here in this best of all possible wikiworlds, so I'll keep my dissenting and heretical opinion to myself in future. Else I'll never be able to join your exalted ranks. (Not under this username anyway ;-) ) :lol: --MalleusFatuorum23:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to late to join in. Being deceitful to evade a block is bad. Being deceitful to pass RfA, allowing you to block other deceitful editors, is good. Discuss.[7] --MalleusFatuorum02:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Machiavelli certainly advises quite plainly in The Prince to act in the way most likely to lead to the desired outcome. But to take one example, was it Tan's desired outcome to be widely distrusted because of his duplicity? --MalleusFatuorum03:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MF, I usually agree with you on contentious issues, but I just don't see the similarity between bilking the RfA system and disrupting the project. In other words, your analogy doesn't seem apt. Wisdom89(T / C)03:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed a bit: "the end result was a highly active and extremely effective administrator [who is not trusted by some]". I've said all that I intend to say about this for the moment though. --MalleusFatuorum03:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admit to a philosophy of RFA-optimism, and I also admit that RFA optimists are annoying, rather like the doctor who answers "No, this won't hurt me a bit" when you ask him "Is this going to hurt much?" I know that people get disappointed with everything about RFA, and I know that candidates get disappointed when they don't pass, and I do care. Having said that: some things about RFA work pretty well. People generally tend to hold their fire on people who they think are going to run, and hit them with their ammunition once they get to RFA. Although this is often an unwelcome surprise, it's also practical: it gives lets people who have something to get off their chest a chance to see what everyone else is saying about the person first, and re-think it; it gives them some cover to say negative things without getting gunned down for it; and it gives candidates some relief by letting them choose the time they're going to deal with bad news, and do it in the context of getting warm support from others at the same time.
My question is: how does the above discussion about Tan fit into the way things are usually done at RFA? He's already passed; why are his perceived flaws relevant to RFA any more? Is there an upcoming RFCU? Has he announced he's running for cratship? Has he volunteered to have his foibles discussed in the context of improving the RFA process? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← The issue, at least from my perspective, is that Tan has set an example for others to follow; the way to pass RfA is to lie and cheat. Some may not have a problem with that, but I most certainly do. --MalleusFatuorum20:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The interesting comment here Dank55 is "He's already passed". As I've noted repeatedly above I have no personal issue with Tan at all, but your perspective implied by that comment is concerning. Are you saying that once someone has the bit (and a lifetime granting under the present system) we should only be concerned regarding how they got the tools if it gets to RFCU / ARBCom / whatever? Further, surely the community who commented at his RFA has a right to continue discussion, particularly in the light of new information, without the need for some kind of formal complaint procedure? I don't see anyone shouting for blood here, simply. Pedro : Chat 21:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the drive home, I figured out that these are the opening ideas in something bigger; sorry, I didn't mean to point a finger at you guys in particular. I'm starting to think in terms of co-writing a long essay on the story of RFA, and these thoughts are part of that story. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that, though normally that would imply someone had recently edited it? Also I logged on to a different PC. Maybe I need an eye test, also I'm seeing it under L and if it was there it would be under U. WereSpielChequers23:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your comments my man. Well, I figured a big ALL CAPS shout on my page might be about as far as I can go before it gets silly and does actually violate CANVASS; However I am particularly incensed by this nomination - and the nominators request to proove notability and give verifable information are, well, sadly lacking in understanding at best. Pedro : Chat 22:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who genuinely don't see the world the same way you and I see it, and some of these people are particularly attracted to Wikipedia and what they perceive as a "pages matter, people don't" philosophy. When people propose things this outrageous, I try to be gentle. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Actually your opinion in this debate would be of particular insight. As it stands it's a snowball keep, but I admit my ultra bias here so some calm words of logic from yourself might help many in the debate. Either way, I'm from the South and really posh so we use Ariel not Surf....lulz (apologies to American TPS'rs)Pedro : Chat 23:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to just speedy close it again - not to start a ruckus or prove a point, but because I think it's fairly obvious where it will lead. It's a waste of the community's time. Wisdom89(T / C)01:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the other editors are, in fact, children then no, it is not :) Please don't get me wrong - Malleuis can be brusque to the point of rudeness, and he and I have a (lengthy) history of arguments. However WP:NPA is often thrown around too quickly and I honestly saw nothing on the thread that was of serious consequence. Comments were made that were not ideal in a utopian collegial atmosphere I agree, but they were not actually specific personal attacks IMHO. Pedro : Chat 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see it's at ANI. That's a pity. FWIW I do think you are trying to do what you think is right, but trust me, it's not as bad as it seems. Pedro : Chat 00:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calling other editors children is an attack if the editors are adults. Calling someone a "child" is nothing more than an insult. This is not the first time Malleus has resorted to using the old "childish" attack on somebody who isn't even a child. Majorlytalk00:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the way the wind's blowing here. It's a shame but its clear that I'm unwelcome on wikipedia, and it's been obvious for a while. I'll go find something else to do. --MalleusFatuorum00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see where you get that idea. It's your rude streak that isn't wanted. If you would just be civil and polite to people this wouldn't be happening. Such a shame. Majorlytalk00:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I know. Apparently the e-bay market for admin accouns on en.wikipedia has taken a nose dive. Must be the credit crunch ....... can't think of any other reason. Pedro : Chat 21:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still going back and forth about the whole "protecting MF's talk page" thing. I can't decide if it was a good or bad call. I can see the reasoning for both sides of the argument. I have a feeling that it just infuriated MF more than he already was. Wisdom89(T / C)18:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, can you recommend me to any admins who would be willing to admin coach me? I've been after three (Juliancolton, Malinaccier, and KnightLago), all of whom seem to be inactive for one reason or another :( Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk)00:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In put appreciated
Could you look at this. I would like your advise on this, you don't have to comment there, but I respect your opinion as to if I went wrong. I apparently got in an edit war, it didn't seem like an edit war at the time (I've made no more than 3 reverts, then sort third party opinion to diffuse the odd issue), I assumed it was a new IP, who was simply unaware of our writing style (that leads don't need sourcing and issues relating to formatting of references). However, the IP clearly has an account and has a fair bit of Wiki knowledge. Again, at the time he was making these edits, it suggested that he had no understanding of article writing, not even the basics, so it didn't seem to be a dispute, rather a lack of understanding on his part. I went out of my way to accommodate his request. I sourced the article lead, even though it's not needed per WP:LEAD. He seemed confused that the citation I eventually provided was a page number from a book (the book details were viewable in the references section). Again, all this led me to believe that this was an issue of lack of understanding, rather an a dispute of any kind. Without warning he said he was reporting me for 3RR, it kind of clicked at that point that this wasn't a newbie, rather quite the experienced editor. Context in these issues is everything, and I got the context wrong, for one reason or another. — R203:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the link was thinking of. Pedro is more resourceful than I am : ) Sorry to step on your toes buddy. Thought you weren't around. Wisdom89(T / C)21:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's th epoin tof TPS'ers - make up for my lack of timely responses :) Had a somewhat busy weekend and have been from pillar to post today so no WP till now. Pedro : Chat 21:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the right. Any admin me re-add if they see fit, as I'm very inactive on WP at the moment and may not be around to discuss. Pedro : Chat 21:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me back my rollback tools both of those edits had a reason; the first was on the talk page instead of the project page and didn't belong there, and the second was trivia a violation of WP:TRIVIA. The Cool Kat (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if the RFPP edit was one of the allegedly-bad ones, I'd have to say I'd have done the same thing, had I looked at that user's (Tjq86) contributions. The request was formatted in such a way that even if it HAD been on the right page, I wouldn't have taken it seriously, either, once I saw his other edits. Going through the list of The Cool Kat's last 10 rollbacks, I see two that are MAYBE marginal. The rest of them seem reasonably on target. I'm not going to restore the rights myself--too involved, plus I don't want to wheelwar--but I wish you'd rethink this. GJC05:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All three of these [9][10][11] were misuse of rollback - i.e. reverting good faith edits. I'm not going to regrant, but as I noted above any other admin may reinstate if they so wish. Pedro : Chat 07:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(od) Note to any admin reconsidering: User has also used rollback in an edit war that they reported to ANI March 7 [12], which they moved to a different notice board before an admin really looked at it [13]. They rollbacked twice while edit warring [14][15] and then pointed out they knew they should not do it anymore. --64.85.223.105 (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smile
Rsrikanth05 (talk) 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'd like to take a moment to thank you again for your wisdom, help towards other users, and overall kindness. I'm very impressed and pleased that people consider you a positive force, and know they can rely on you for help, advice, or even just a cheering up. Thank you. Acalamari21:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DougsTech (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Thanks for the explanation. I use AIV with blatant spamming first, then take it to ANI if necessary. I realize that many admins working AIV may not consider such requests appropriate there. Thanks for taking the extra time to explain. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Freindly notices
I am notyfing users who were at the WQA, or complained about or defended Malleus's conduct, I'm not spamming random people.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
These people have expressed an opinion on malleus' behavior and therefore a) may be interested in the issue and b) have a perspective to add.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP has made one bad edit today and is likely dynamic. [16]. The warnings are not from today and therefore your report was rushed, to say the least - please remember that this could well be a different person from yesterday. In addition the edit could be interpreted as a test or mistake. If the IP does disrupt please feel free to report again. Pedro : Chat 21:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Errr.... the warnings for March show one on the 20th and yours today, so I find it disingenuous to claim that the warning was "only a day ago". Even if it was a day ago, then a block for that edit would be punitive not preventative. If you wish please ask for an administrator to review at WP:ANI. Pedro : Chat 21:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
