Hi there, seeing as you created WP:NOTNOW, perhaps you may be interested in the oppose section of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rehman 3. The candidate is a sysop on commons and definitely not a new user, yet someone has decided to link WP:NOTNOW in their oppose. I then asked if they could read Wikipedia:When not to link to WP:NOTNOW, but it was derided as simply an essay. If you could possibly clear up to this editor that NOTNOW should not be linked to experienced candidates, it would be appreciated. Jenks24 (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an incorrect use of the spirit of NOTNOW (or certainly the way I intended NOTNOW to be used). However a valid point is made that NOWNOW enjoys effective consensus (in that it has had multiple editors but more importantly been used as a "guideline" for a number of years now); whereas "When not to link to NOTNOW" does not enjoy the same level of community buy-in (yet). Alas, sometimes people link to essays, guidelines and policy (LEGAL and POINT spring to mind) because they "sound" right even though the actual point is not really relevant. I seem to recall, amusingly, someone linking to NOTNOW at AFD on the basis that the subject was not notable NOW but might be later :). I think you're right to challenge the oppose in the way you did, but further discussion at the RFA itself (and me interjecting) is probably not going to help further. Best wishes. Pedro : Chat 08:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough and I understand that further comment at the RfA actually might not be for the best. Hopefully "When not to link to WP:NOTNOW" will gain more prominence in the future and people will link to NOTNOW only when they genuinely believe that the candidate could benefit from reading NOTNOW. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very good here my friend. Trying to get back to the mines here at WP, and do something productive. Still re-reading through various policy and guideline pages to see what's changed and all. All the basics seem to be pretty much in tact though. It looks like the "Pending changes" and a few items in "Cite" are the major things I have to get through. Family is well here, daughter getting married this summer. Hope all is well with both you and your family. Cheers. :-) — Ched : ? 22:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smile!
Here's a plate of fish and chips for you! Fish and chips somehow promote WikiLove, but more importantly, they're a tasty meal, and hopefully they have made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Acalamari02:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last I heard it was four groats and a dead pigs bladder for the winner. Might have been Wikipedia c. 1807 edition though :) Pedro : Chat 22:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pedro. I'm taking you up on that question offer! What do you think of this? I believe that the CSD tag should be removed, as the person seems fairly notable.-RHM22 (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! I'm going to remove the tag. I thought it a good idea to ask first, even though this isn't really an administrative action.-RHM22 (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the spat on WR I've never known us to have a quarrel, but I'm notoriously forgetful. Thanks for the note... I'm busy so I don't often revisit most AfDs these days. If the strength of the argument's with the keeps, I've got no beef. Take care, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)20:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, it's best that I notify any arb of anything these days - you know what with the super sekirt list and all. I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find our past disagrements on wikipedia, and hence why I had the courtesy to advise you (your fellow arbs might do well to follow the blue link, I might venture). Your assumption I edit Wikipedia Review shows your character well, if poorly; If I did I'd be sure to make myself obvious - I can tell you that - however I don't. Good day. Pedro : Chat 21:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could just be mistaken identity. Try to give david the benefit of the doubt (especially if you feel he isn't giving you the benefit of the doubt). Protonk (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I suppose it's possible that David could confuse myself and some WR editor (I beleive the top contender was someone called Nerd; now I have a decent level of self depreciation; but really.....) Pedro : Chat 21:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please resign being an administrator
Pedro, please do the community a favor and resign your administrator office. Whether you wish to submit to a RfA would be your choice. Kiefer.Wolfowitz12:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with an admin action of mine please take it to WP:ANI. If you have a problem with me please feel free to ignore anything I type. Pedro : Chat 12:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from WT:RFA) That was an inappropriate request. I've seen admins screw up big time but simply being a tad irritable, which is what I've seen of Pedro on this page, is not grounds for a desysop. Believe me, if an admin really screwed up and I saw it unfold, I'd be calling for an accounting, (not necessarily a desysop, but a very public apology and a promise it wouldn't happen again would suffice in many cases). Show me where, in this conversation, that Pedro crossed the line. I don't think you can. Sven ManguardWha?18:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
interview request
Hello,
My name is Natalia Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of the motivation of users to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals.
I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, as a user, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. Your real identity, and wikipedia account will be kept confidential through the paper.
I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 6st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN, Google Talk or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too.
Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel.
Thank you,
Natalia Olaru
Email: natalia.ioana.olaru@gmail.com --MulgaEscu (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I don't think it's close at all, as the bureaucrats will undoubtedly use their discretion to get the "right" result, or leave the RfA open until they do. Cynical? Moi? MalleusFatuorum20:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comments. You're right - Sarek is too trigger happy at times. But he's also involved in some crap situations and mostly does the right thing. Whether he seeks those crap situations is another debate of course. I'm, on balance, convinced WP is better of with him having admin bits than not. Mind you, we'd be better off with you having them as well.
In respect of the crats, you cynicism is fair. Personally over recent months I've come to trust (most of) the 'crats far more than I trust many members of ARBCOM however. Pedro : Chat 20:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what Sarek's done he's got way more chance of getting through either this RfA or one soon to follow than I would ever have; I came to terms with that ages ago. MalleusFatuorum20:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I highly appreciate your contribution towards Wikipedia however after all your due respect would you be kind enough to let me know that why did you write that "might like not to be one some day" every one wants to be the administrator its an honor, My apologies I think Wikipedia is my life therefore I just asked you, I hope you don't mind, Keep in touch brother. --Faizanalivarya (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly I need to go to my preferences as apparently the new "friendly wikiped-idea notification system" (ugh!!) is spamming my in-box. Who though that woulkd be a good idea?. Any way, thanks for your note Faizanalivarya. I'm afraid I disagree being an admin is an "honour" and there are too many admins who think that in some ways it places them in an "elevated" position. I do use the admin tools, so that's why I keep them, but it doesn't mean that at some point I might not be too bothered not to have them. Hope that explains. Best wishes. Pedro : Chat 06:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pedro. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I do think you should look carefully at User:Thepoliticalmaster's edit history before considering granting rollback rights. There have been some downright vandalism edits, numerous edits that may have been intended in good faith but were unhelpful, and quite a few examples of total misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies or methods. I do not think that the user is anywhere near to ready to use rollback. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks James. I'm not minded to be granting at the moment anyway, based on a cursory look, and will certainly ensure I give detailed attention before adding any flags on re-application. Pedro : Chat 15:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You most certainly aren't causing any problems, please don't feel you are. Even as I typed "on a cursory look" I thought I'd get pulled on it :) - what I mean is that a quick look through your contributions was enough for me to decide not to add the flag - they were to limited and too recent. In general if a cursory look makes me think I should add a flag that's when I look a bit deeper before doing so. Sorry for any confusion and no slight on you intended. Pedro : Chat 21:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance tenure of the account would be the deciding factor, but you'd probably have to ask Fastily - Rollback has no defined minimum reqauirements and adding the flag is discretionary after all. Pedro : Chat 14:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean you'd need to ask Fastily exactly why he decided to grant the right in that case above, but as I suggest I imagine it's because of that editors tenure. Pedro : Chat 18:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further I'd also say that you need to understand section blanking is not necesairally vandalism [2] and that "he got it, why didn't I" is not a positive argument. Myself, Fastily and JamesBWatson have all declined to grant rollback or commented or on concerns at this time, and I'm afraid with consensus of three established admins not to grant the issue is largely at an end, barring a request from you at WP:AN or WP:ANI - which I would strongly discourage you from making. The more you persist in trying to get this right the more you're not likely to be granted it to be honest. Sorry. Pedro : Chat 18:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please have a review of my contributions and give some feedback, I've made an attempt to improve my identification of vandalism. E.g. I've been using Rollback AGF instead of Rollback Vandalism for section blanking and posting Section Blanking and test edit warnings instead. I haven't persisted, i jusy wanted a fair review of it. Thanks! ;-) --Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure by what you mean by the above but yes, it is the weekend where I live, I have a family and real life and I will not be looking at this for the next day or so. Sorry. Pedro : Chat 21:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No no, I'm not asking it of you. I was looking at what other administrators use as criteria for recall and I noticed one of the editors you mention is User:Accounting4Taste. You said that if any of the editors leave Wikipedia that you'd remove them from the list. As I also have great respect for A4T, I am aware that he has left Wikipedia. Just giving you a heads up.--v/r - TP22:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Man, I had no idea he left. Shame - really nice guy. I guess I'd better update that list to be honest. Tanthalass left ages ago too. Pedro : Chat 11:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - I though you meant the editors RFA (and also sorry for taking so long - I've been out all day). I've deleted the whole page. Pedro : Chat 20:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notice:
we're starting a cabal, and we need a leader. Any suggestions? ... now if we can only get him to work on his sig. ... LOL. Hey Pedro, how goes it? ... Hope the Mrs. and little ones are doing well. Cheers buddy. — Ched : ? 01:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Mr. Bytes' talk page. Many thanks for the well wishes - all happy if somewhat busy here. Very best to you and yours! Pedro : Chat 19:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Mr Hochman could of course be thinking you're a sock of Insipid (talk·contribs)? Apparently our comments are not welcome. Frankly neither is his blatant and relentless self promotion of his two-bit internet marketing company, but there we go. It's precious little wonder most admins are perceived as over-bearing cretins when we get people like Jonathon issuing block warnings like he did. No doubt his real life clients are impressed with his ability to, shall we say, "re-align" reality. Regretfully for him on Wikipedia <terminator>we have detailed files</terminator> of what actually occured. Pedro : Chat 20:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not going to say I dislike J-man, but I did form some rather vivid impressions back when I first became an admin. I indicated my desire, even intent, to unblock an editor (might have even been Mall), and out of nowhere, he came to my page and all but threatened me with Arbcom. I did eventually find something I agreed with, and approached him with a "good call", but I fear he doesn't much respect those who disagree with him even once. Admittedly, the warning to that particular user might have been justified by another uninvolved admin., with a better choice of diff. I say that because he (Flatterworld) has been dancing around the wp:civ stuff a bit. Nothing blockable, perhaps not even warnable ..but either way. To be honest, there's quite a few folks flirting with CIV and PA issues on that Santorum discussion, but when someone actually moves an article, AND engages in discussion on the talk page .... well ... let's just say I would be very leery of pulling out any adminy tools in that situation. To be perfectly honest Pedro, I have a very high tolerance for uninformed folks, but I completely lack the ability to appreciate arrogance. ... All in all, I often look to you as an example, and not just because you were my RfA nom. Your dignity, and dedication to what is right and what is fair are truly admirable. Cheers. :) — Ched : ? 22:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You flatter me sir :) My outlook is that we cuddle the newbies and the established editors get called on their mistakes. Maybe that's the wrong attitude, I don't know, but it seems to work. I've not researched the above particularly well, but IMO we don't start shoving block threats in that way, paticularly when anyone with a basic grasp of English would realise it was a comment on comment and notcomment on commentators. Mr. H. needs to "wise up" and realise that efforts like that is the reason all admins get tarred with the same brush so often - a more gentle approach and there would be no need for any rancour. Pedro : Chat 22:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The recent RFA kerfuffle
Hi Pedro, WRT the recent RFA where your comments were redacted from the talk page and subsequent blowup, I have some concerns with your behaviour. Firstly, I support the removal of your comments, as they pretty clearly constituted personal attacks. You may feel anger/concern at SG's approach, but you chose a completely inappropriate way to express it. The rationle of sexism is not totally wrong, as you used "screaming into the tea-towel". Most of your venom was admirably generic, but that's beyond doubt, so it ill behooves you to protest on the basis that you are being personally attacked. I really think you should just apologize to Sandy for that whole bit. Now if you don't want to just say sorry, consider where she's coming from. DYK does have a lot of problems, due to its intense rotation and easy "point of first contact" for reward-seekers. I'm not in agreement with all of her examples of copyplagios (and keeping in mind that I wrote the first draft of a related guideline), but her concerns were not wholly out of line. And I don't get the allusion to "12" in a username referring to age, since um, wouldn't you have to change nics on a regular schedule? But concerns over underage editors are not invalid, as they touch on the subject of maturity, which is a key requirement in (potential) admins. One sign of maturity is not being so concerned with your own age that you reveal it as a matter of course - and when maturity concerns come up in RFAs, it is invariably because the candidate has been telling people (at least one person) how old they are. That's a worthy topic of discussion.
Beyond those details, I have two main concerns with your conduct. As far as "RFA is broken", you just completely proved the rule with that outburst. If long-time community members are unable to restrain themselves, what example is being set for relative newcomers? And as an adminstrator, isn't the general notion that you should be setting the tone for community discourse and collegial editing? Your comments are very far from that standard, and I find myself disappointed. Franamax (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro: Regardless of whether your attacks were sexist, they were certainly personal (and quite vitriolic). Your behavior does not set a good example of how administrators are expected to conduct themselves. Kaldari (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kaldari - I agree and that's fair comment. Franmax - I would have agreed but as you too seem to think "screaming into a tea towel" is sexist you are clearly not worth agreeing with. When will you lot get it through your skulls that it is your sexist/homophobic deep rooted personal issues that cause you to see it in others? Only those with sexist agendas (perhaps unrealised) could assume a tea towel is a female object. Sandy thinks I've lost my marbles, so that's all fine as far as I'm concerned (don't forget Sandy started this with her venemous attack on a 12 year old). Pedro : Chat 06:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude...
...you can help this project more from the inside than by leaving it (either voluntarily or by being marginalized in one way or another). Try to stick around. Frank | talk 01:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of interest is the two seperate emails I have received over night offering their support and agreement. So that says something. Pedro : Chat 06:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very good and much needed - alas of course the kind of work that gets opposition at RFA because it's not "audited content contributions" or some other twaddle.... Pedro : Chat 06:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should talk a bit. It seems that you and I have some very similar thoughts on this whole "crat" thing. Will get back to you as soon as I have a bit of free time. Damn "real life" keeps getting in my way of Wikipedia. Hope all is well. Cheers and best my friend. — Ched : ? 21:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, my daughter's wedding is coming up in a couple weeks (about time...lol). Have to admit that this extra "bit" being floated about for crats sure made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Really need to think that one through. Kind of been jotting my thoughts down at User:Ched Davis/bits4crats, although I'm not sure I'm ready to go prime time with it yet. I seem to have gotten a lot more vocal lately in some things. I'm not so sure that's a good thing yet. I really need to think some things through right now. I'm seeing some things on WP that I guess I had never noticed before, and I'm not so sure they are good things. Cheers Pedro. — Ched : ? 15:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You recently opined here; this note is to advise you that this section has been closed in lieu of discussing each situation below the linked section individually. –xenotalk16:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My recall
Hello! I've been mulling over criteria for what I feel would be acceptable for recall and I'd like it to where only a select few editors I trust can ask for my recall. I'd like you to be one of those editors. I've outlined the process here. If there is any reason you would not like to be on this list, for example maybe you object to recall or perhaps you don't want to deal with the drama involved, could you please let me know?--v/r - TP18:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks not dissimilar from my own recall stance and I'm flatered to be on your list, no problem at all. Thank you for notifying me. Pedro : Chat 19:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the idea did come from yours. Yours was the one I liked with a few additions of other recall processes I read. That's how I caught that you still had A4T listed ;). Thanks.--v/r - TP20:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Related to your concern of this close you mentioned at the latest RfB, I too was a bit dismayed by it. I have now come to understand that it's probably the best way to close it as if a specific bar was included in the close, it would probably have created a bunch of drama. Anyway, I just wanted to mention that the issue is still being worked on, but it is on hold until the twinRFCs have closed. This is because of a concern mentioned here.
While I'm here, I'd also like to mention how grateful I am for all your efforts to the project. You are one of a dozen or so admins that really make the project shine. I have appreciated your work for quite some time and wanted to thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. Thanks and best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
