User talk:Keeper76/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Archives 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 •18 •19 • barnchive •

Hate to break up the party, but I've got a serious question

I just rolled back an edit from a user that, upon checking his contribs, has few edits and some that I thought could be problematic. What do you guys make of this and this, from this user? S. Dean Jameson 01:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• There's also this bit of appparent COI. S. Dean Jameson 01:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Asked about his redirects. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history of his talkpage, I highly doubt he's going to respond, but it's a first step, I guess. S. Dean Jameson 01:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the redirects, as implausible. A string of Asian (Japanese) characters redirecting to Fuck and Bitch? Not useful, now deleted. Keeper ǀ 76 15:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Keep. What did you think of his other few edits? His is definitely an account I'm going to keep an eye on. S. Dean Jameson 16:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

His other posts (from July) are only two posts. Both POV insertions into the porn article, both quickly removed. Nothing warranting blocks or anything, just harmless drivel. He/she is a drive-by, dime-a-dozen, thousands like it, non-Wikipedian. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Keeper ǀ 76 16:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right about that. I still think that I'll poke my nose into that account's contribs periodically, though. S. Dean Jameson 16:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sig... and ...

Love what you did with your sig. Less is more. I'm considering taking a run in the near future. Thoughts? And this isn't a fishing for compliments type thing, but real thoughts :).Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll pass whenever you run, it's in your court. Let me know when you've finished the questions on the bluelink, I'll add the nom statement as well. You'll be treated brutally but fairly - you know how the "venue" is. Keeper ǀ 76 17:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added some answers here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it ready? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me do one more read through - did I spell anything wrong or misstate anything? Keeper ǀ 76 18:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Blushing too much to catch anything... Ill take a look through your nom once more. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nom looks good. I'm comfortable with my answers, read through them a few times. Anything technical I'm forgetting?Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope transclude away, expect opposition (I haven't checked your edit count recently, but others will, meh. Once trancluded, update the end time to be 7 days from today (right now, it's set for sometime in june...) Good luck and have fun! (and leave those damn opposers alone :-) Keeper ǀ 76 18:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated time, offically "accepted", and transcluded. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when it's transcluded so I can get my Oppose in early. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dont' you mean "silent neutral?" Keeper ǀ 76 18:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, that was the one. Not that I bear grudges you understand ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Added my question. Can't be showing favouritism to WP:AN/K regulars. =) –xeno (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of sigs, I'm testing my new one. I think it's easier to read. Thoughts? TravellingCari 18:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's soooo preeeetttyyy... I can't stop staring at it. I will call it bugzapper blue, as it will lovingly and innocently draw others to you.....and then....ZZZZAAAAAPPPPPP111!1!1!eleven!11 Keeper ǀ 76 18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wore my Cherry Coke Zero from that comment. Thanks for the laugh :) TravellingCari 19:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Make the "Cari" red. and Wikipedia:Editor review/Shapiros10 2? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: making "Cari" red, no idea how to change colours mid sig. And re: the review, I know I said, "I'll keep an eye on it over the next week or so and then review, OK?" but I'm still on semi break and living without furniture. I haven't had time to review your contribs yet. TravellingCari 02:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep, would you mind removing that comment from the RfA, or perhaps adding it directly to Le Grand's talk? It's well known that Le Grand makes supports and opposes on such grounds, and if I was going to have a problem with that I shouldn't have ran. I'm satisified with his response and didn't expect/want a switch to neutral. I liked the way it was left, I'm not sure what an argument will do at this point. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you went home already... no worries. The note you made was tamer than it first appeared to me. Have a good night, and thanks for your support. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks

I was rereading Isaäc's memorial page, and was so struck by your empathy and compassion. People like you are rare in this world. God Bless You. Your kindness will never be forgotten. You are a Prince among men. Jeffpw (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

not flaming

Hi Keeper76. You don't owe me any apology. So, you weren't playing slo-pitch (I thought Durova was pitching them a bit hard & inside too) just maybe chill a tad and go double up the dose on the AGF (might be a good time, I get the feeling there's no line up over there at the GF vat just now...). Cheers, -P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete.Hurd (talk • contribs)

You mean there's still something untainted left in the vat? I've assumed it was spiked....appreciate it PH, Keeper ǀ 76 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm, your comment implies that I've visited it lately... I'm just speculating from afar. Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant no implications about you or your state of inebriation, I meant my post to be taken very lightly. Sorry if that was misinterpretted. Your advice above (to chill) did not fall on deaf ears. I'm getting closer and closer to my personal vat of sinful pleasures...Keeper ǀ 76 20:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, I should have put the wink-smiley in the post rather than the edit summary. As for my state of inebriation, you are indeed a sage judge of disposition. Now I really must run and remove the bong from the fumehood before the grad students show up for their afternoon immunocytochemistry lab session. (soft) Rock on! Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to advise your nominee to get some of that vat as well... I found some of his words to be overly defensive and if I wasn't already opposing, they might have changed my stance.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for him, he is his own person. I found his posts to be sufficiently well reasoned, but I may not be being completely objective. Before his RfA was live, I told him RFA was brutal and ego-bruising at best, and to refrain from overposting in the oppose section (A rule I broke myself there, and apologized for in three places). In my honest and good faith opinion, some of the opposition is being incredibly nit-picky, but I've unwatchlisted the page as not willing (any longer) to continue to feed the drama in what should be a relatively low drama venue. Someday, anyway... Keeper ǀ 76 20:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't sweat punching out of my RfA, I think it has reached much higher levels of drama than either of us could have anticipated. The only thing for certain is that the results will be interesting to say the least, I noticed that your other nom is running into unexpected trouble as well so we shall see what the overall will of the community ends up being.--Finalnight (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said FN. It's up to the community. My apologies to you for overposting in your Rfa "oppose" section. You will make a fine administrator (after all, it really is no big fucking deal). I have "unwatchlisted" your RfA, and the other nom, so that I don't make things worse with my belligerence. I recommend to any candidate, regardless of my nom, to not "over-reply" to the opposers, as it typically "digs the heels" in further, and adds a few "per editor x opposes after it. Again, I apologize FN, regardless of the outcome, for overposting to your RfA (I simply found some (not all) of the opposition to be completely off-base). Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 22:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I started to overpost a little there too and will be holding to responding to only blatant falsehoods that are posted, ie false edit counts, percentages, etc. Also, as much as I would like to apologize for certain previous mistakes as others have suggested I won't because it will just be viewed as pandering to get a successful rfa.--Finalnight (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Review reminder

Hey Keeper. This is just a reminder to review my editing (and archives and such). It's almost thursday, so don't forget, or else... :P Oh, and when your done, add it to my talk page since I'll be busy and I won't check here often. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And me! Wikipedia:Editor review/Shapiros10 2. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I'm likely not going to have time for this this week after all, and apologies for that RyRy, because I told you to remind me. I'll be on wiki most likely, but the energy needed to do a proper ER is just not appealing to me at the moment. Don't take it the wrong way. You're both great, you're both doing good things, and you both need to stop spamming me to review you, it's offputting. Again, apologies, especially to RyRy, because I asked you to remind me, but I'm apparently rather crabby at the moment, and you were the first ones here...Keeper ǀ 76 21:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, sor-ree! I'll just go watch Caillou. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I said I was sorry, I said I was crabby. I can't apologize for apologizing. Keeper ǀ 76 21:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Oh no worries, I said I would wait a year if I had to. Take your time Keeper, there's absolutely no rush in a review. Your a busy and responsible man Keeper, so I (and hopefully Shapiros) understand. -- RyRy (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

More advice

Resolved

 – without keepervention

This IP seems to be vandalism only, inserting wikilinks to "sexual intercourse" repeatedly. What's proper procedure with this type of IP? S. Dean Jameson 22:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Report it to WP:AIV. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, and thanks! S. Dean Jameson 22:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously...

Arguing with LGRDC at RFA is like arguing with Betacommand at IFD or Baseball Bugs on ANI, and no more productive. You have your opinion; he has his; they're both valid; neither of you will change the other's mind. I'm not supporting this one, but it's unfair on the candidate to give the "Oppose, too much drama" brigade a chance to wade in through no fault of his own.</pompous> – iridescent 22:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Aww, dammit, I was about to say roughly the same thing. RfA is only the tip of the iceberg though - try arguing with him at AfD, in which his arguments are simply inane beyond reason. But yeah, just ignore it. You'll never convince him to change his mind, as he's so ingrained into his inclusionist philosophy that basically any attempt for deletion is viewed as a rationale for opposing. His arguments at AfD are already disregarded by most administrators and if he continues at RfA, he'll fall into the same mold that Kurt does. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You should have warned the people in my RfA before they got into a one page long argument with him in the support and oppose sections, lol.--Finalnight (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Keeper's Mafia, can anyone link me to the "I'm currently running..." banner I can use on my user/talk pages? BTW Sephiroth, my wife loves your username, as she does whenever she sees it as an alias anywhere on the internet. She played basically two games when she was a little girl, Chrono Trigger was one, and I'm sure you can guess the other. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

{{RfX-notice|a}}  Frank  |  talk  01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) {{RfX-notice}}. And kudos to your wife. Both of those are among my favorite video games =) Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Britney Spears

Yeah, having issues, and the 3RR page is waay to complicated for me. Its driving me nuts just trying to decifer it. Can someone (one of the many page stalkers for Keeper) take a look? Thank you much! Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 01:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Malaysian cats

Hi can you delete Category:Cities in Johor, Category:Towns in Johor and Category:Villages in Johor. They've been merged -thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wales

I just wanted to thank you for your work on Wales - it needed a totally uninvolved and unbiased person perpared to read up on it from scratch, you you clearly stood up.

I have made a 'second proposal' based your own proposal, and your support for Pureditor's two word idea. It strikes me that as COMMON NAMES clearly supports 'country', and that a citation is always needed for that, the word 'within' can now do the duty on what type of country it is.

Who knows, it may even take off elsewhere. I hope it's as 'neat' as it seems to me it is!--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll go look over there in a bit, I'm trying to "de-Wales" myself at the moment :-). Off the bat though, I'm not sure there is a need to link country anywhere in the lead because it is a common name, so right now, I'm leaning towards Pureditor's suggestion, but I'll have a look again. Cheers, and thanks for the thanks -- Keeper ǀ 76 15:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The irony was I that supported keeping the current constituent country a while back, but not because I didn't think 'country' would work - I just thought the existing 'constituent country' was the better of the two, and was irritated over my suspicions of the reasons to change it, and to keep focussing on it: it's been a two-way thing, and very frustrating. But my feelings are 'by the by' - 'country' clearly fits, and is clearly wanted: so I back it fully now.

Country is the core article and needs to do the explaining itself - which it does. It is not misleading anyone to use it: the word 'within' now shows there is another element to it. I don't think Wikipedia should be strangled by the ISO definition of the word, anyway. Look what happened to the recently reclaimed List of national anthems - it was redirected to the ISO-only List of anthems by country! Wales and many other nations and countries suddenly had no national anthem. Not a clever period for Wikipedia.

The core country article explains the word fully - we need to trust the cores. If we don't, look what happens?

I just wish I put my energy into supporting country before, as it could have helped avoid a lot of unnecessary nonsense since, especially when I was out for a month. There were a couple of now-banned socks around arguing against it in the past, and there were never that many 'normal' editors so vehemently against it. I know one (GoodDay) who favoured 'constituent', like I did, will now vote with the tide just to get consensus. It has in recent months become very hard to discuss other edits on Wales (and Wales has editors who are very pro-discussion over change) - as someone who has many more improvements to make to Wales, the country/officiality issue is something I want to see behind us.

Please also bear in mind that when we do link to the Subdivisions of the United Kingdom in some way, a merge with constituent country will occur (it has consensus and is on hold), and then a name change will be proposed at some point to Countries of the United Kingdom. Supposing it went through, I would then favour simply changing the pipe of 'within' to the new name. 'Country within' linked together is fine as an idea - but it just doesn't look good, and imo will never sit well.

The word 'within' is 50% of the problem solved, as it shows there is a extra element to 'country' - and it has consensus - so that much so far is a real achievement.-Matt Lewis (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your work on Wales. I hope the archive is OK - I wasn't sure exactly what you meant by the England example (I couldn't find it) - but we needed to change the archives back from the auto-bot (put in, I thnk, because of the amount of recent chatter), so I created a manual archive for the debate, that is easy to refer to as a reference. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Image help

Putting ANK-based image gurus to work, I know it's a dumb question but I don't do images so I'm confused. Can someone decipher this and tell me in English what I need to do? It's a photo I took myself of a sign that indicated a building was landmarked. I don't think the sign, since it's not a work of art, is copyright in any form. What do I need to do? Thanks! TravellingCari 21:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum; you need to post this at WP:AN/G. – iridescent 21:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

But I can say from experience that right of panorama ("it is not an infringement of copyright to film, photograph, broadcast or make a graphic image of a building, sculpture, models for buildings or work of artistic craftsmanship if that work is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public") doesn't apply in the US and you may be violating the copyright of the creator of the sign under US law. Giggy will know. – iridescent 21:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Giggy is the god-king of image work. And Irid, did you make that silly AN/G link just to make a funny at AN/K? Tsk tsk...Keeper ǀ 76 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Shit, nevermind, it wasn't a link, it was a pipe. I really need to get the hell away from wikipedia at the moment...Keeper ǀ 76 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, there's an AN/I too. – iridescent 21:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is too bad, because otherwise I'd redirect it here. Maybe yours should be called WP:POSTHEREIFYOU'RETWELVEANDITOLDYOUTHATYOUCOULDN'THAVEHUGGLE. Keeper ǀ 76 21:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Right now I feel like I should redirect my talkpage to WP:SSP and have done. As I said (somewhere), I feel like I just won the chance to be Alison for the day. – iridescent 21:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Want some of my Xanax Keep? It goes well when you mix it with whiskey ;) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Iri. I asked Giggy and linked here so we don't have the discussion in two places. Didn't know copyright applied to signs ( like I siad, I don't do images) and wasn't sure how LPC issues were handled. See what I get for seeing an un-written about historical site adn writing an article ;) TravellingCari 21:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Xanax and Whiskey. Now that is a great band name. I'm hoping when I hit save that it will be bluelinked. If it ever shows up, I'll defend the garage band to the death, only because of the brilliance of the name...my current crabbiness Gwyn is from your RfA (and my other nom's)by the way. You have no idea the level of flames I've got itchin' in me-fingers. But I won't, for your benefit, and I've stopped, for the other candidate's benefit. I highly suspect you'll take the RfA way better than I will. I still believe it will pass, and should pass. Keeper ǀ 76 21:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Please don't take it harshly. RfAs are a deceptive thing early, I was 15 - 0, now I'm probably less than 50% chance of passing come seven days. You know me, and know that more than anything I respect the community's general thoughts regarding a candidate. I've yet to get a frivolous oppose as well, which I'm happy about. If it makes any difference to you, I'm home chilling in the nursery with my son at the moment (hes sleeping), and everything is right in the world.

By the way kiddies... in all seriousness, just in case you were curious, DONT mix xanax with whisky. Trust me on that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The opposes are genuine, I agree, and no different from what I was expecting, with the exception of one, that pulled an AFD !vote of yours, from January, out his arse. Okay, I'll leave it alone...Keeper ǀ 76 21:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

ETA, going offline. Will be back to thank image gurus post-gym TravellingCari 21:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/G is a redlink. Shame. Anyways, the relevant information is at commons:COM:FOP#United States. My reading of that is that the image should be OK. I did some Googling because I had initially thought the same thing as Irid, and found Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama; In the United States, "freedom of panorama" exists only for buildings (17 USC 120). So yeah, seems the image is fully legit. By the way the bot message is asking for a license tag, for instance a GFDL/PD tag. Since you made the image you can use something at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. —Giggy 09:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Except, of course, that I just realised that image is not of a building; it's a plaque. For photos of works of the visual arts (sculptures and statues, but also murals) there are no similar exemptions in the U.S. copyright law.. Bummer. Google finds Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 February 10#Image:Babe Ruth Plaque.JPG. So yeah, this image is a copyvio. Sorry. —Giggy 09:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Giggy/all. I'll go take it down. So the question remains, if I go take a picture of the remains, which still exist as a series of homes and wwhere the landmark desgination is, and the sign happens to be in the picture does that render the whole image a copyvio? TravellingCari 14:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking a picture of the buildings with the plaque somewhere in the background would be fine since the plaque would be incidental rather than the subject of the picture. If it helps, think of it as taking a picture of Times Square: you're bound to catch advertisements in the background, but you're not running into their copyright because they're not what the picture's of. Alternatively, if you took a picture of a particular billboard in Times Square to show the ad on it, that would be. Does that make sense?

Also, while the plaque photo wasn't free use since 2D things aren't covered by freedom of panorama in the US, you could write a fair use rationale for it if you feel having it would add to the article. Assuming you discuss the plaque, having an image of it would add to the words and there's no free alternative way of showing the plaque. Hope that helps! Vickser (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Vickser. I don't think I can discuss the plaque any more than I have discussed the landmarked status of the building. I'll just take a photo of the building, which I think would be a better addition to the article anyway. I couldn't do that the first time since my cell phone doesn't capture great panoramas. TravellingCari 21:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My recent block

Thank you for standing by me after reviewing the facts. Chillum doesn't seem to be interested anymore now that I'm unblocked. I don't really care about the apology, I guess, it doesn't matter.

But, what can I do for my reputation? For my block log? Those blocks by Husond (LONG ASS STORY) sucked, and I didn't really fight about my block log after I was finally redeemed and unblocked but look what happened! What can I do now? This truly sucks. Beam 03:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Be a good editor. Don't get on admin's bad sides. Don't get blocked again. That's what I'm doing, and itseems to be working out for me. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 13:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My humor and my stringent NPOV and CONSENSUS traits with in my editing are what makes me worthwhile to the project. If jumpy admins who don't care about their actions ban me for it, well, so be it. I just wish my reputation wasn't raped in the process. Beam 21:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your reputation was...excuse me? That is a fairly indelicate use of the language, yes? I don't recall seeing you before today and I just looked at your block log for the first time. I don't see a problem with your reputation. As I see it, it looks like you had the misfortune to cross paths with some of our less efficient administrators. Don't take this stuff too seriously, Beam -- there's nothing wrong with your reputation or with you. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I truly appreciate the sentiment, it means a lot, truly. However, if you review transpirings of the latest indecency by Chillum it was, in part, done based on my previous blocks from "less efficient Admins" as you put it. That's what I mean by reputation. Some people aren't as nice as you, nice enough to actually look at an editor and their contributions and not solely their block log to form an opinion of said editor. Beam 22:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, really, who cares? I've got a block on my log as well, given by an administrator who really ought to have read up on the rules before he blocked me in a misguided defence of his chum. But am I bothered? .... ah, I see what you're getting at now. :lol: Seriously though, it's water under the bridge, best just to forget about it and move on. Unless of course you plan to stand for RfA any time soon ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Pull the plug

My RfA has now hit the "not going to pass threshold", so pull the plug on it. Thanks.--Finalnight (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You're free to withdraw, but you're currently at 75% support, why not let it run for a while longer? –xeno (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll withdraw it, if you wish. Rudget (logs) 14:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommmend letting it run out, too. Tan ǀ 39 14:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am at 74%, Rudget just hasn't gotten around to posting his oppose yet, and the trend has strongly been towards oppose. I am already in the "grey zone" and looking at this year's RfA's, less then 75% receives a "no consensus" decision. I think at this point I would be lucky to maintain 74%. The math just doesn't work. Unless someone sees some benefit to letting it run out? I will not do another RfA after this so it bears no benefit for the future.--Finalnight (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

51 / 68 = exactly 75% (neutrals don't go into the equation). You may still get more supports... It's really up to you. –xeno (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how many admins have a failed first RfA. I do. I know they're brutal - but never say never. I recommend resigning yourself to not passing this one, let it play out, and over the next few months, actually address some of the concerns, regardless of how valid you think they are. Use this one to set yourself up for the next one. Or not, it's just a suggestion. Tan ǀ 39 14:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

51/69 once Rudget posts his oppose. I will hang on for a little while longer and see how things shape up.--Finalnight (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments tan, but before I was asked to run 2.5 days ago, I had no plans to seek adminship as evidenced by the comments in my recent RfA review. Using up more of my leisure time for a second run just doesn't make sense. Dramatically changing myself to address anonymous individual's philosophical concerns (for the most part) to earn a chance to provide pro-bono assistance to a nonprofit project seems convoluted at best.--Finalnight (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good summary, but you've come this far, might as well let it play out now. You never know what might happen ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's worth waiting. Yes, it is a bad trend at the moment, once one person pulls out a valid oppose reason it's pretty common for lots of others to jump on you for the same thing(s). But I don't think that the RfA is necessarily lost yet, you're still well in the "possible" region and I'd give it at least another day or so to see if the oppose trend continues or reverses itself. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 15:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're worried about your leisure time and think that you would have to "dramatically change" to address what you apparently consider frivilous concerns, then perhaps you do want to pull the plug on this RfA. Tan ǀ 39 15:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say they were frivilous, but many are idealogically based which means I would have to change my idealogy and philosophy to accomodate them. And yes, its silly to use my leisure time to keep running over and over when I can be doing other contribs.--Finalnight (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

<---Experience says that this RfA will probably not pass. My bigger concern is regarding not running in the future. I'd urge you to consider why you let yourself be nominated - perumably to help Wikipedia further. If now is not the time for the community to grant you extra tools that shouldn't mean that you give up wanting to help. Many, many admins failed RFA 1 (and often RFA 2 or more). don't give up on the idea of being an admin. For sure, it's no big deal, but the buttons do help. Just my 2p. Pedro :  Chat  15:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Do what you wish, Finalnight. I apologize it isn't going how I pictured it would, (I said it was brutal, right?) Some of those oppse votes are just downright inhuman. The worst is by far the "lecture" one that says I've only nominated my "wiki-friend" and have tried to pass you off. Good lord, did he even fucking read anything? My first post to you was "where have I seen you before" because you posted here asking me to perform an admin action for a WikiProject, and I vaguely recognized your name. I looked through your talk archive (archive!) to realize that I had worked with you on a football article. Once. In Fucking December. ARticle work, not wiki-socializing. That editor has completely soured me, has been incredibly unfair to you, and has completely damaged my (already slightly) jaded view of rfa. You are an excellent editor, finalnight, that I have been fortunate enough to have stumbled across, and you don't deserve to be treated the way you are being so rudely treated. (Not by every opposer mind you, but still). The two RFA nominations that I have running right now are my last two nominations. Keeper ǀ 76 15:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey now, remember my first RfA? I think you said something similar after it went south ;-) Tan ǀ 39 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Straws. Camels. Broken backs. Keeper ǀ 76 15:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with keep on this one, I have previously railed against how screwed up rfa is in my rfa review, but this has blown even my jaded self away. I have managed in or been promoted in 3 fortune 500 companies in extremely competitive areas and not dealt with this kind of unchecked rancor and hostility. Wikipedia is quickly becoming an example of whats wrong with a pure democracy. Is it any wonder why the number of promoted admins drops every year while the number of inactives/semiactives continues to spiral higher (currently at 1/3 of the admin base).--Finalnight (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I do know how you feel. RfA really should come with a health warning. But still, the damage is done now, so I'd still be inclined to let yours run for a bit longer. That way you'll get a full list of all your enemies, and you can humiliate any of them who're stupid enough to allow themselves to be nominated at RfA. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, in particular a few RfAs (including Finalnight's) this week have made me feel fairly sad. Community standards just spiral ever higher, and the number of people who kneejerk-oppose for minor transgressions and/or based on superficial reading of other oppose !votes seems to be ever increasing. You are basically looking at a failed RfA based on a couple of questionable AfD votes and, in my view, someone else's misinterpretation of what "helping with a GA" means. Bleh. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 15:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Rudget's !vote sealed the deal... by pointing out this discussion, he gave people the greenlight to oppose. You should go ahead and withdraw officially. Again, I do think with a little more experience, you would be a stronger candidate.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that Rudget's usual word salad has any bearing on the matter. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

By pointing out that the candidate is contemplating withdrawing his nom, supporters are less likely to do so now and opposers are more likely to oppose. It is the psychology factor which makes RfA's the poor beast that they are. I can see a pile on factor coming into play now for no other reason than people will perceive that it is "OK" to oppose because the candidate is contemplating withdrawing anyways.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. But if you are, then it's a very sad reflection on a process that I had no great regard for the integrity of in the first place. Still, I see no point in not sitting it out, not unless it's beginning to cause the candidate undue stress. Which would, of course, be perfectly understandable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have told him to do so if it wasn't for the fact that he came here to start the thread on how he wants it pulled... and has left it open primarily because others are pressuring him not to close it. (Heck, I even dropped him a note on his talk page encouraging him not to close it yet.) As for the integrity of the process... I think most of us realize it is broken.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now lets pull it.--Finalnight (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably wise at this stage of the game. Just change your acceptance of the nomination to a statement saying that you want to withdraw now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

GOD DAMMIT. Keeper ǀ 76 18:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure I understand that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Another editor retires over an unsuccessful RFA. Useight (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's a real shame. People don't always realise what a brutal, ego-bruising place RfA can be. Failure at RfA can very easily feel that your contributions have been weighed in the balance and considered worthless. Not very motivating. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm am royally angry that this community has successfully hazed someone off the project. No biggie </sarcasm>. If anyone posts anything along the lines of "that's proof that he wasn't adminship material", I'll flame them. That was one of the worst abuses of the RFA process that I've ever seen, to a damn fine editor. If you (not you singular Gwynand, "you" plural, as ini everyone here) feel the need to self-righteously snub his reaction to his treatment, do it somewhere else.Keeper ǀ 76 18:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'd be just about the last person likely to do that. I've got a pretty good idae of how he must be feeling right now, and it isn't nice. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't to you Malleus, I'm positive something like that wouldn't come from your keyboard. It was a general note. (You plural). Keeper ǀ 76 18:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, is someone going to at least close his RfA at this point? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was already closed. Keeper ǀ 76 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Useight (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

thank you Useight. I would've done it myself, but my edit summary would have brought me to ANI. Keeper ǀ 76 18:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a note on Finalnight's Talk Page that he retired. This kind of stuff makes me so sad. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Me as well. I'm considering just leaving RfA for those who currently seem to "hold sway" there. I've been trying to actively participate and work there, but there doesn't seem to be any real point when good editors like Finalnight get torpedoed. S. Dean Jameson 20:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Meldshal42

Hi Keeper, I know that you have different expectations for candidates than I do, so I thought I'd invite you to take a look at User:Meldshal42. He showed up on my page asking for an admin coach. He has a decent record with over all decent contributions, but he's young. IMO too young to be a viable admin candidate. But rather than let his hopes and dreams fall on somebody with high expectations, I thought I'd pass him on to somebody else whose opinion I respect.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you mean this post to sound as rude as it does, (rather than let his hopes and dream fall on somebody with high expectations, I'll pawn him to Keeper?), and I'll assume good faith in that respect. Read my post directly above this thread. I'm no longer an admin coach (haven't been for a while), and I'm no longer searching out editors to find good admin candidates. I'm done nominating. Keeper ǀ 76 15:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No disrespect intended at all... I mean that I arguably have too high of expectations ;-) You nominate good candidates... I just wish they weren't as green as they have been lately. I was asking you to take a look at him to give him a second once over as I do think he is a solid editor... I just have a hang up over his age, and don't know if that would be an issue for you or not.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

{e/c). I have high expectations of every editor, to imply that I don't is hurtful. And when I see a good admin candidate, I tell them to run and if they want, I'll nominate them. Your expectations in that regard are way too high balloonman. I need to check, but I vaguely remember you even offering to nominate Gwynand in the past (I'll strike this if I'm wrong), and now you oppose? Finalnight has been here as a (named) editor for 6-7 months, in addition, several disclosed months as a positively contributing IP, has thousands of clueful edits, stumbled into my talkpage to get "admin assistance" because we happen to be in the same WikiProject (he's active, I'm name only at this point). I offered him a nom and he wisely accepted it. If someone is qualified now, and I or anyone else, arbitrarily "runs them through the RFA coaching", they'll get flamed out of RFA even worse. You know very well that that is true, or at least, you talk that. With the exception of Tanthalas, I've never coached a single one of my nominations. I find good candidates and urge them to jump off a cliff, "it'll suck, but it won't hurt that bad, and the tools on the other side are worthwhile". They've all passed with the except of one. Jza84, DDStretch, Fritzpoll, Alex.muller, Martijn Hoekstra, Travellingcari, and Cenarium. All terrific admins (Tan ain't half-bad either:-). If you self nom, you fail. If you get coached, you fail. If you get nommed because you deserve to be able to press the same ridiculous buttons that I can press, you fail. RFA is shit, and I'm done with it, other than to continue to add one line, knee jerk support to good candidates. Keeper ǀ 76 15:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to help here ...... Pedro :  Chat  15:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, this is a case where I feel conflicted... if I didn't know his age, I would probably have a different outlook here... but I just can't get over noming somebody this young. (I probably would give a Neutral leaning support vote if he were up for RfA.) But that is based largely on his age.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to follow up Keep, I really didn't mean any disrespect... I was asking you to take a look at him because he is a quality individual---just young. And I don't want to put myself into the position (again) where I've nomed somebody who I have any reservations about. I struggled with him because he didn't meet my criteria, but I could see somebody else with a more "open mind" about these things having no problem. Thus, I came to you because I do respect your opinion and while I think a number of your noms are premature (I've opposed others besides Final and Gywand) I think that everybody you've nomed has solid potential. You are better at seeing potential.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The main difference in our expectations then, Balloonman, is that I do not hold someone's "potential" against them. Adminning is not rocket science, you don't have to be intelligent (or old) to do it. There are hard decisions sometimes, yes. Experienced admins do them, not new ones. There are still things that I've never done as an admin, and if a situatino arose, I would go ask someone. If someone has the "potential" to be an admin, then they are an admin. If everyone already thinks you are an admin (what you said about Gwynand on more than one occasion), they should be an admin. Good editors like Finalnight and Gwynand should get the bit with minimal drama, and they should not have to wait some arbitrary "time frame" that they ironically have already met, and they should not have to suffer ridiculous hazing to get it. Finalnight, ironically, meets your criteria that you've paraded around (the edit count, the clue, the 6+ months experience), and I'm pretty certain that you've mistakenly used your perception of what you think the quality of my nominations are and used it against him. It's why I don't read nomination statements. And it's why, starting today, I will not be nominating anyone else for adminship, unless RFA is drastically fixed, if they have to go through the Shit that Finalnight has been put through, and now Gwynand. Durova's oppose was nothing short of hurtful, misguided, and a complete misinterpretation of the candidate's statement. Everyone else saw "Durova said No!" and jumped on board, because its Durova, apparently without even bothering to look into the claims. A shameful way to treat another human being. CarbonRodney's oppose was cruel, presumptive, and 100% wrong headed. I won't put another editor thru that, it's not worth it. If someone gets opposed because I'm the nominator (again, pretty much what I think you're doing Balloonman, you've decided I nominate "green" candidates), then I am no longer a nominator, simple as that. You've said in many places that you feel "the system is broken", what I'm failing to see is how your opposing good candidates is in any way helping to fix it. Keeper ǀ 76 17:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel like I'm voting against you, your nom was actually a positive because you do find quality people. It really surprised me when I saw that Gwynand had less than 3K edits. I didn't think about how you nom what I consider to be greener candidates until Gwynand ran. When reviewing him it made me reflect on Final's RfA, Tan's RfA, and another person (I forget whose) that I felt was premature. While a person can be a quality person, and have potential, I don't think you get promoted based upon potential alone. You have to earn it/show that you are ready for it. Final's RfA was one that I was willing to reconsider (If you look at my oppose, the first have was what I didn't like, the second half was what he did right.) I honestly thought it was going to pass, but he came off a little overly defensive in his responses to the opposers and yes, Durova's oppose might have killed him. I encourage you to continue looking for qaulity candidates... but ask yourself if they are ready not just to just your expectations, but to the expectations of the community as a whole. You've been around the block long enough that you should know that somebody with less than 3K edits and 6 months of experience is going to face some resistance--even if they are otherwise qualified. You've also been around other areas of wikipedia where one of the common outcries is "How come the RfA process is letting people through to adminship who have zero experience?" While people on the RFA pages are complaining about how hard it is to pass, people in other areas are complaining that anybody can become an admin! More and more quality candidates are refusing to run because a) they don't want to go through that abuse and b) they don't like what they see making it through the system. The problem with RfA is that it penalizes people with 10K edits and awards those with fewer than 5K. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally throwing myself in... but something struck me with the 10k penalize 5k reward thing. I think its that peeps with 10k edits have more fodder for the flames. Whether they did it in their first 200 edits or just happened to look like a dumbass once or twice... the longer you're here the more likely you're going to screw something up. And the more likely someone will notice and shoot you with it if you run. Just a consequence of being old I guess. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 17:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Weird how one person mis-interpreting the answer to a question on an RfA can make the whole thing crash and burn. " Should we look at his contributions? Nah, let's just find something we don't like in his answers so we can bitch about it. " --KojiDude ^(C) 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c re to balloonman)Apparently I haven't been around those other areas of Wikipedia where they say "It's too easy to become an admin". Haven't seen those yet, where are those? You could perhaps answer "FA and GA" talkpages, which I don't frequent, but if that were the case, our best article writers wouldn't be so terrified to run either. Article writers get opposed because they haven't "edited in admin areas", Meta editors get opposed because they "haven't written enough in mainspace". Good grief, we are impossibly mean to each other. An editor wants to write articles, and have the extra buttons to be more efficient, can't get em. No fucking AIV reports. An editor doesn't want to write articles (probably because they suck at it and got flamed out of the FA arena by the FA regs), but instead wants to gnome them, CE them, protect them from vandals, and defend their writers, and could use the extra buttons to be more efficient - can't get em. No GAs. Fucked up. Keeper ǀ 76 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really so strange. RfA is to consensus what a lynchmob is to a fair trial. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is from the primarily article writers that I get the most complaints... I have to ask 2-3 people like JBMURRAY or HAPPYME2 to get a positive response. The people who think it is to hard are those who frequent places like XfD, AIV, etc. The people who think it to easy are those who frequent places like FA, GA, MOS, etc. I try to find my candidates from the later rather than the former, but the responses I get (sometimes in private) portray a different picture on the RfA process.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec, completely butting in here) I agree, the whole RFA process is broken. What users like now is some sort of balance between the two areas, but it is practically impossible to do so without compromising one or the other. I'm not even going to get into the 110% edit summary nonsense. As a user that works very closely with Meldshal, I certainly think that she is certainly ready for the mop, but due to her recent controversy as a GA reviewer and her evidently young age she would probably not pass. I probably completely destroyed my chances for adminship over one 12 block I gave myself 6 months ago. RFA is a lynchmob. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't think that way, EotW. The admin who blocked you was himself blocked for a 3RR faux pas earlier in his Wikipedia career. If he could become an admin, there is no reason to think someone like you couldn't make the grade. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's quite right, you'd likely have as much of a chance as anyone else in the RfA bearpit despite your block. It's only reprobates like myself who refuse to recant of our sins of incivility whose chances have been "completely destroyed". You're not even close, believe me. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wonderland Resort

I agree that this is very sad to be deleted! I kept an archive of this page. If we can still fix it up, maybe we can put it back up on Wikipedia. What do you think? Is this possible? I don't know where to find any good resources. Ben Boldt (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely it's possible! What we need are good sources (don't have to be online, just reliable and independent of the subject matter). Do you have/know of anyone that has good write-ups about the resort? Old newspaper stories, etc? Unfortunately, while the brochures are nice to have and excellent "primary" sources, they don't convey notability (just good marketing). I did try one evening to dig up some things, and never did find anything. Without independent sourcing, it won't stand a chance at recreation. Cheers, Ben. Keeper ǀ 76 17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Angelo Parenti

Resolved

 – without keepervention

Ki Keeper. Could you please delete Angelo Parenti--an AFD was started, but the nominator wishes to speedy that as it is clearly a hoax. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Random wikismile

Hello. Just thought I would drop you a wikismile. No reason. Just saw you around and felt like it. Keep up the good work. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Guidance sought from AN/K

I've been mulling over this for a while, and I'm becoming even more concerned by it at the moment. As you know, I've been working on WP:RREV for a while, particularly the in-progress reflect section. Trouble is, the more I watch RfAs latly, the more I am beginning to feel that despite a number of editors expressing concerns about the process that nothing will change. More than that though, I'm beginning to feel that people are actively resistant to change, citing that the process cannot be broken and that anyone who can't take it shouldn't be an admin. Frankly, I'm appalled by that attitude and feel that any process that results in editors that have been a net benefit to the project leaving for good must be flawed. I'm concerned that there are a number of editors who actively avoid adminship because of the way the process treats people, yet I'm told that perhaps they're too weak-willed to become an administrator. Yet these concerns are brushed aside by those who claim that the process works fine...

So, getting to the point of this rant, I'm becoming dissolusioned that while WP:RREV can and should deliver a deep introspective examination of the RfA process, that it'll fall on deaf ears. Despite the research I've been doing tending to indicate that real, fundamental change is needed, I'm beginning to feel that it won't happen and that it's a futile excercise in increasing my projectspace edits. Right now, I'm contemplating returning to WP:VG and doing article cleanup and repair again, forgetting that the whole adminship area exists. While I'd love to see RfA overhauled I'm beginning to feel I don't have the strength to do this on my own any more, or the clout to deliver what is eventually needed. Meanwhile I have the lyrics from this song ringing in my ears. As always, I'd appreciate thoughts, comments etc. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gazimoff, it is highly unlikely that I'll get my post in here first, and it is highly unlikely that you'll find my opinion today to be very optimistic, in fact, even going back and looking at my own responses to RREV/Q, I'm more pessimistic now than I was then (what 2 weeks ago? a month?). RfA is broken broken broken. It is fixable fixable fixable. but it is a victim of a community that is too large, too diverse, too abstract, and by its very nature, too anonymous. Anyone can say anything they want behind their cloak of anonymity (my analogy being the driver in the US that swears and curses at other drivers in other cars, because they can't hear him. Holds the door for the same person another day at the grocery store, because it's the right thing to do). I'm not saying that we should abandon our anonymity (I'll be the first one out the door if that's ever the case) simply to save RFA, but there will never be a consensus for minor changes, let alone a major overhaul. The most drastic step, from Arbcom or Jimmy perhaps, would be to shut the damn thing down and disallow any new sysoppings until a new way of sysopping exists. I'll ice skate in Hades, enjoying the view of the soaring swine whilst trying to shit a monkey if that ever happens. Please be more optimistic than me though, you said (somewhere) right from the beginning that the result may very well end up being "it's the most awful possible process, and also our best option." You'd make a great admin by the way, if someone was willing to dig your contribs and nominate you. I'll happily add my support to your RFA down the road. Until something changes, I will personally never drag another person into that arena to be fed to the lions. Keeper ǀ 76 20:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

.....Keeper got his post in first ....... Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA should be an online private match on COD4. No voting, 8 players, free-for-all, 1st place gets the mop. Gaz, you should run for RfA yourself, like a science experiment. Just don't tell anyone that's the reason, or they'll oppose. :-/ --KojiDude ^(C) 20:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I call those people the "RFA Cabal". RFA will never be fixed unless Jimbo does something drastic.

Leon, every user should be required to run yearly :) Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If every user was required to go through that RfA shit-hole annually, then I'd be on the first bus outta here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is in the inertia created by those who support the status quo. I went to WT:RFA a while back and put out a simple proposal to "shorten the pain" by moving the time an RFA is open from 7 to 4 days. I was shouted down by those who were afraid this would somehow disenfranchise those who only edit on one day each week. No one actually provided examples of people who only edit one day per week, but there was absolutely no support for such a change. Every time I see any type of change proposal floated, it's either shouted or laughed down. I can't imagine that WP:RREV is going to be any different, unfortunately. S. Dean Jameson 20:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems whenever anyone proposes a change to RFA, people talk about it ad infinitum and then in the end, everyone gets tired of arguing and the status quo is upheld. –xeno (talk)

Contray to Keeper, I have never felt more positive about RFA - or rather more positive that we can change it from the cesspit that it is. We need to weed out the process and recognise it for what it means. We need to eliminate the myspacers and games players, we need to eliminate the cabal and those that have a fear of there being more admins (mainly existing admins). And we need to both understand the shifting sands of community desire but codify them. Above all we need to make RFA a collegial and pleasent atmosphere, where we do not view a failed RFA as a defeat or loss. I've been so inactive recently it's a disgrace, and I regret it. But I'm back, and I'm angry about the way the meta part of this project is turning into utter crap. I'm willing to step up and try to help. I admire how candid you've been about your feelings on RREV at the moment Gazimoff, and understand them well. But there is allways hope and hard work. Let me help you. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A change to RFA needs to come from within the community's attitude/behavior/etc rather than from a change to the actual system/method. At least that's what seems to be the case, summed up in a few words. Useight (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agre, and I believe that is possible, however large the mountain may seem. Pedro :  Chat  21:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)re to Gaz, re Pedro. Gaz, if Pedro is calling something "crap", it is crap. He doesn't use that word lightly, in fact I can't recall a time I've seen/heard Pedro say anything with stronger language than that. I'll help as well, even if it's as devil's advocate. Keeper ǀ 76 21:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Keeper, I'm inclined to agree with you. We've seen that adminship polls haven't helped, an RfC on the process hasn't helped, multiple discussions on WT:RFA haven't helped. It's becoming a joke that you can chalk the seasons by when a suggestion on a new process comes up. I'm not sure if halting sysops is the answer, but I'm concerned that WP:RFA will hit the point where no editor gains more than the magic 70% support from a process that isn't supposed to be a vote. Sam, I don't think that there is an RfA cabal, just that people put more trust in the voting statements of others than they do in their own abilities to research the candidate. Just like AfD suffers from people who drive-by vote instead of reading the article and performing research of their own. have a look at my AfD contribs to get an idea of what I mean. Dean, the purpose of WP:RREV was to gather thoughts and opinions on how it works currently so that when proposals were put forward they could be demonstrated to fit with the largest group of opinons. It was a completely different take, and I'm still hopeful it's the right approach, just that even with a solid set of arguments or proposals that they will be dismissed out of intransigense or triviality. Perhaps I should have more faith in people, but I have a rather strong faith in logic, and people are not logical. Xeno, completely agree. I've seen corporate discussions on process analysis get bogged down so much that nothing happens. Nothing, that is, until the department gets made redundant. Pedro, I'd welcome help. I just need to get my house in order on a few talkpages at RREV, in order to be able to divide the workpackage up into manageable chunks. Let me move some things forward, then I'll blip both you and Keeper when it's ready. And yes, I try to be candid where possible. I don't beat around the bush or try subtlety, as I'm hopeless at picking it up myself and would rather be open and honest. That doesn't mean being impolite, which is where I think people start going wrong.Useight, the key with WP:RREV was to look at problems before solutions. Understand where the concerns lie before making any reccomendations. That's wy we did the survey, to ensure that we didn't make solutions in search of a problem. A possible outcome is that it's agreed that the curent process is the best we have. You're welcome to join in if you like though - many hands make light work.

And Koji, Keeper, i think standing as an adminship candidate would be a monumentally stupid thing for me to do right now. While I think I can demonstrate trust, working to better the project and serving the community and editors individually, I feel I lack ability in other areas. From behavioural traits, I think I need to work on my self-discipline more. With knowledge traits, I only have a single GA and a couple of DYKs, and while I've tried to get an FA (twice), I've not been succesful. While my AfD work is reasonable, my WP:UAA work is pitiful and my WP:AIV contribs are all automated (I tend to only report really blatant vandalism), and I'm never seen on WP:AN or WP:AN/I. From mediation traits, I only demonstrate an ability to work with others through article/project work - I've never used WP:3O or WP:MEDCAB, so I don't have experience of working with others in difficult situations. It would also be incredibly hypocritical for me to stand while my faith in the process is so low. And besides, I suck at COD4, and I'm even worse at Halo 3. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 22:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And there is (one of the main characters in COD4) named Gaz. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I vote for Half-Life 2 instead. Useight (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I think my nick was arounf first. It's a Portmanteau of my real name (easy to find out if you're inquisitive) with Isaac Asimov. I've used it as a nickname online since I first had the intertubes, sometime back in the mid 90s. Fact of the day for you. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 22:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Gazimoff's 22:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC) comment presents the exact problem with RfA, and ("with respect" (Hi Mall!) becuase Gaz knows I think he's awesome) I'm disappointed that he didn't notice this when posting it. Seriously, why on Earth do you (collective) think that someone would be a crap admin if they haven't responded to an AN report? Or helped with mediation? Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kakofonous. I don't think Kako dabbled in any of those areas; he just hung around for a few months, wrote a few articles including a GA or two, and helped with MOS cleanup on quite a few others. And he hasn't destroyed the wiki as an admin. Gazimoff has more credentials than Kako had when I nominated him. The fact that he considers himself not ready is exactly the problem with RfA.
So... how do we fix it? :-) —Giggy 08:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Giggy, I'm not great. And while I have some ideas on some basic changes that will cut out all the fishing for opposes, dramatic opposes, vitriol and the effect of pile-ons on both sides without disenfranchising the community, I need to ensure it fits the problems people are facing with the adminship process. That means it takes time, and means that unveiling solutions is possibly two to three weeks away at best. Meanwhile, people are still getting damaged by the process. You know me, Giggy, I like to Zing things, and I can't do that unless I can prove completely that there's solid logic behind my proposals. But then again, my new job title at work is Solution Designer, so I'd like to think that if I can solve problems for mega-corporates, a single process on a single website shouldn't be unachievable. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 16:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Duly Notified

You wanted to know when it happened.[1] And, yes, it is sincere. I can't for the life of me decide, but I want to. Your thoughts?--KojiDude ^(C) 22:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. You bad man, you....Keeper ǀ 76 15:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Review help.

If you're still interested in helping out on the RfA review, there are now some notes on the talk page at WT:RREV to get started. Please let me know if there's anything else you need. Much appreciated, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 01:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll be reading this (and other things) throughout the day, won't be doing much editing. Conversely, I may start reading that, and other RFA related things, and get as upset again as I was yesterday, and instead go gnome some articles. Or close afds, or do unrelated-to-rfa-type-things. But I will be reading, and I'll offer my assistance - anything specific you need there other than eyes? Keeper ǀ 76 15:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, I'm off doing some article and maintenance work myself to just get away from things at the moment. What would be helpful is if you'd be up for processing through some of the responses and fleshing out the reflect article - there's more info at WT:RREV. I'll be returning back to it myself once things are a bit calmer. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 16:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Philisophical question

Look over at WT:RFA#Impossible? for my extended thoughts on it, but I thin it is easy to categorise RfA as a pure vote because there is no need for discussion (on either side), there are percentages for passing, with significant opposition based on frivolous reasons rarely, if ever, discounted. Here's my ponderance for Keep and his army of followers:

"Given that RfA is a vote, it constitutes democracy within Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship should be deleted."

I guess it would inspire reform, but I'm not seriously suggesting it (it would never pass MfD, for one thing) - just wondered what other folks thought. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh - I was quite despondant and gloomy when looking at RfA over breakfast this morning. Don't mind me Fritzpoll (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Read that thread. Chillum (formerly Until(1=2)), is adamantly opposed to changing anything within RFA based on the false logic that "even the smallest changes haven't found consensus to change yet, therefore it's not broken". What he doesn't seem to "get" is how drastically RFA has changed, from a simple "Can I have em?" "Sure" to the farce that it is now. No consensus to change anything? Where was the consensus decided to make it the ridiculous 7-day long full-on attack on another editor that it is now? Keeper ǀ 76 15:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess he'd argue that silence is consensus. Thing is, so many people say it's broken, but until there's a jolt to make people rebuild from scratch, all discussion will peter out. My bugbear on it at the moment is that people, including a lot of RfA regulars, still refer to this as a consensus gathering exercise (using "!vote" etc.) when really it is a straight vote. I fear that until people stop deluding themselves on this point (not meant that harshly) then there will be no change, and RfA will descend even further. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Read this bit of satire, along with this gem I started, ironically, before I nominated my last two good editors. Both essays are of course satire, but as is universally accepted with most good comedy, the truth is much funnier than anything we can make up on our own, hence the phrase "you just can't make this stuff up" while wiping a tear from your eye...That said, RFA is a vote, no exclamation point needed, and we are deluding ourselves. Keeper ǀ 76 16:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Having contributed previously to the first and read the second, I still find them hilarious. I guess we should be happy we survived RfA, but it's almost like I've pulled the ladder up from behind me... oh well. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. I can name firsthad 20 editors that would've passed RfA last January when I did (and when Archtransit did too, I suppose could be a counterargument)...At the end of the day, we are entirely too mean to each other. Keeper ǀ 76 21:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that feeling of despair descending, and in honour of Gwyn's brave assault on a flawed process, I'm going to get a Cobra Beer from the fridge. Back in a mo Fritzpoll (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Withdrew

Hey Keeper, when you come on today, you'll see I withdrew. Things took a bit of a nose-dive overnight and it looked pretty clear that there wasn't going to be a consensus for me to pass, regardless of any chance of hitting the 75% number. I'll have more to say on things in due time, though I'll admit that I was quite surprised at some of the things people thought about my editing. I hope it's better to be a bit sad than angry, though. I'm taking the day off from work, will see The Dark Knight if I can somehow figure out how to do so with a 2 week old, and maybe sneak into a happy hour as well. Will probably be away from PC most of the day. Talk to you later. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 11:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You're still an admin to me, Gwyn. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 11:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

F***ing dammit Gwyn, I wish I could ban the RFA Cabal! Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Saw it coming before I left last evening. I still think you'll pass, but I had a feeling you would withdraw if it got below 80/85 percent. Enjoy your bourbon (that was a classy withdrawal statement, btw). Sigh. Now, of course, you should follow everyone's advice there - go work on some things that you have absolutely no interest in, and then reapply as a "balanced editor". Of course, being that you have no interest in the areas that you haven't edited yet (hence, no edits), you will likely do so with less enthusiasm, and therefore will probably be more "apt" to make errors and earn some new, fresh opposers next time. RFA needs to be shut down until this commnity can learn (I'll dare say remember) how to play nice, support as default, and oppose as last resort and civilly. Keeper ǀ 76 14:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A bit of a laugh

Egad, there is too much gloomy news around here. Well, maybe this can provide a quickie smile. It is an AfD discussion going on about a supposedly planned remake of the Oscar winning film "My Fair Lady." If you know the score to that musical classic, you'll get a lot of the humour. And, for once, it is nice to see an AfD where people try to out-do each other with puns and jokes: [2]. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarityfiend, Ohconfucius, and Protonk definitely have the best lines there. (besides, of course, the nominator). Cheers Eco, I needed that this mornin'. Added it to me funnies. Keeper ǀ 76 14:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

this one was still my favorite. Gotta have a laugh. TGIF all! I finally get my bed tomorrow and furniture Monday :) TravellingCari 16:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Another great one, added to funnies. If anyone else has a "fave" AfD, link it here please? They are exceedingly good at reminding me how silly this place can be. Friday fun. Keeper ǀ 76 16:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Verdatum's comment got the biggest laugh out of me -- a real shake-the-rafters laugh, for that matter. Hey, who knew there were so many "My Fair Lady" fans out there? And I remember the National Super Hero Day AfD -- that one was brill, too. I wish more AfDs were as much fun - that's what makes this project soar. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

CHU

Would you have any objections to the latest request at CHU, which has a target username similar to yours? Rudget (logs) 14:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone wants to be Keeper16? That's a bit too close (a "one" and a "seven" look too similar font-wise). I have no problem with him/her using "keeper", it's generic, maybe suggest 16Keeper? Or KeeperXXX (three numbers?) Keeper ǀ 76 14:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as well I asked then :) I'll make the noticeboard aware of it. Rudget (logs) 14:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is decided really isn't a big deal, I've stumbled across several other users with "keeper" in their name (none of which are my socks - com'n you really think I named my socks Keeper??? :-)) Let me know if the switch does go thru though, I'd like to watchlist. Keeper ǀ 76 15:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Too similar, I don't think it should go through. "Keeper Sixteen" ? –xeno (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

How about keepher76?

Better than User:Getridofher76. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 15:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make an informed decision, you'll have to do some research; see how alike you two are. He could be your protigey(who am I kidding, I can't spell that) successor. Teach him how to rant about RfA ;-) --KojiDude ^(C) 16:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Leon, Leon, Leon. Whatever am I going to do with you. Meet you at a motel I suppose. ( PS, it's Prodigy) Keeper ǀ 76 16:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think he was looking for protégé. It's French. See, and you disdain the Canadians on your talk page. =) –xeno (talk)

Yeah, that's the one. With the little nip over the "e"'s. Those French and their impossible to spell words...--KojiDude ^(C) 16:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you butchered that so badly that I micksed itt upp - child genius v. trained monkey. I assumed better faith it seems...Keeper ǀ 76 16:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

that would be an Acute accent. ah, middle school French, I know you'd come in handy one day. –xeno (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a monkey in-training if it's still being mentored? :-) --KojiDude ^(C) 16:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm right. I'm more of a Midas type trainer. Just one touch from Keeper, and you're golden. Now go get me some coffee, lacky. Keeper ǀ 76 16:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn Xeno... my keyboard doesn't have e's with little fancy thingees over them... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Start -> Run -> Charmap.exe –xeno (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bah! That means putting down the pint and concentrating... Bah! - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold down the Alt Gr key and press e. You know, that key that is never, ever useful. Remember, Alt Gr. Grr. Like a tiger. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 17:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Alt Gr? All I have is Ctrl, Alt, and a Window. You're seeing things.--KojiDude ^(C) 17:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Alt Gr? Where the hell is the Gr key? Am I really this technologically daft? Keeper ǀ 76 17:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Great... yet another key I don't have... it's a cabal!!! - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Et voilá, mes amies. It seems your keyboards are sadly non-compliant. Needs moar tiger. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 17:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

On the left, next to the spacebar. Alt Grrr.

I hold down ALT and press 0-2-3-3 on the numpad. Although, the only time I've used it is in typing "Pokémon". Useight (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno what you're smoking/drinking, but I got the edit menu to drop down. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 17:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

<--does anyone else notice that in the edit window, there is a plethora of special keys that you can click on? At the bottom? Below "save page?" "Ě ⅛ В Ć é é é é ↓ М Б" is not something I know any Alt (GRRRR) functions for...Keeper ǀ 76 17:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Drinking? nothing but my standard anti-malarial. Just keeping myself amused and my mind of other things, while butchering articles wholesale. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 17:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long, there was a line.--KojiDude ^(C) 22:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Notice of request for deletion of editor Keeper76 :)

Keeper76, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#Keeper76 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). –xeno (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. Bout time this community does something with clue. Keeper ǀ 76 17:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The AfD mystery of the three Persian kings

Here's another AfD for ya, Keeper, and this one is quite the puzzler: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unknown ruler of Persia. What do you think of this, and how should it be resolved? Ecoleetage (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we really have an article called "Unknown ruler of x"? That in itself is terribly funny, regardless of the "years of reign". "Someone ruled this country/region/empire, from year x, to year y. We're pretty sure. Don't got a name on that, but we're pretty sure.". Hilarious! Ok, now I'll go read the debate...Keeper ǀ 76 17:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Be forewarned -- the article occasionally veers into a discussion of Japanese cinema (something that rarely gets associated with Persian history, admittedly). Ecoleetage (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange. Nobody knows whether to delete it, keep it, or what the hell it even is supposed to be covering. I actually like Fuhgettaboutit's suggestion (and I think you said something along these lines too) to massively rewrite and rename the article to detail the era, and not separately each ruler, known or unknown. The article should describe the discrepancies between "reliable" sources as just that, discrepancies, (i.e., all the circas). I do like the sentence in the article that says this is "the most mysterious thing in all of Iran's history" or somesuch. Dubious claim, or at least, weasel-wordy. Keeper ǀ 76 17:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. All the best, Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks? RfA welcome! Well deserved Ben. Happy editing, Keeper ǀ 76 18:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Honest praise is hard to accept. The impish part of me wants to joke it off. The modest part of me wants to demur and praise in response (but he is frequently shouted down). thank you for your comments. They are thoughtful, fleshed out and meaningful. I do my best to be a credit to the project, although I think you overstate my net impact. I've also seen you around a bit, but I can't really remember where--much like so many people who do good work without excess comment. I've only very recently wandered into RfA, but your list of candidates seems well chosen and discriminating. Again, thank you for the praise. Hopefully I will live up to it. See you around. Protonk (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Keeper76. That was fast. Have you met my husband, Rlevse? (you can bad mouth him if you want, it's okay, harhar) JoJo (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, replied on your talkpage JoJo, Keeper ǀ 76 01:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you like the Vikings? That's my husband's favorite team. He likes the Packers too. He says "No true Viking or Packer fan would ever root for the Bears". JoJo (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Keeper76!

I was wondering about something and I was hoping maybe you could help me. Ok I am a newbie as you can already tell. And I was wondering why my score is negetive? I have been making legal edits and hoping that would raise it up to positive but alas no. Thanks (GlowInTheDarkSushi (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

I've replied at your talkpage (and that is a cool username...) Keeper ǀ 76 14:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

5 Live Report

Please either close this with a keep or a merge, not both. I believe that the consensus is to merge. AFDs are much more useful with clear results.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just went back and looked at the discussion. I'm comfortable with the close. There is no consensus to have it deleted. There is also no clear consensus to have it merged (there was at least one strong objection to the early "merge" advocates), so I'm not changing it to "merge." If you want to merge it yourself, that's fine. Bring it up on the talkpages of the article if you feel it will be controversial, if you feel it is not controversial, just do it. AfD is to discuss whether something will get deleted, the community decided not to delete it, but has not yet decided where it will end up. I'm not changing my close. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 16:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring/Advanced Editor Training

Keeper, I've been knocking this thought around both on WP and IRC, and it's something that I thought would be worth raising here to see if your extensive wiki-knowledge was aware of something. Basically, I'm looking for an advanced mentor. I've been knocking aroung on Wikipedia for about six months now, amassed 3000 or so edits and tried my hand at a number of things from creating and working with others on articles, through to policy work and AfDs. However, I'd like to try and build on that capability to try and be more helpful than I currently am and to develop my skills on-wiki, and herein lies the problem. Although we have the mentoring programme for new users and admin coaching for semi-developed users that would like to be considered for adminship at some time in the future, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism or programme for users that would like more guidance but don't see adminship as a goal to aim for at the end of it. Now, I was contemplating asking Baloonman about this same question, but he's recently cleared his talkpage and marked himself as semi-retired, so I'm not sure who to approach. As always, any thoughts, suggestions etc would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 14:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I would actually like doing this, but I'm adopted by two people. And one of them's kinda doing thsi with me. Gaz, you should talk to User:RyanLupin. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A number of us were working on a formative project at User:Pedro/Mentoring, now neglected. But I'd love to see if it could be restarted as their seems to be a need. Pedro :  Chat  14:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the mentoring page that you've pointed out, and will probably take up an opportunity to use it. While editor review is great at getting a snapshot of performance, it doesn't help for long-term improvements. Many thanks, Pedro. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 16:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Pedro's mentoring program (sorry, "mentouring programme"), is the option that fits best to what you're talking about. It's a completely different format (formatte) to ER, ADCO, or ADOPT, and explicitly does not have an "admin-goal" on the end of it. I encourage you to post there if you haven't, I still have it watchlisted and look forward to working with you (ior any other established editor!) there. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 14:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! I've transcluded a mentoring page there instead of editing the page directly, as I'm hoping this'll work better. Please let me know what you think. Many thanks! Gazimoff ^Write_Read 14:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A deletion discussion you closed at Camp Rock 2: Comebacks

Hi -- I'm contacting you as the closing admin. Evidently the article still exists -- somebody moved the article during the middle of the deletion discussion. Best, 24.227.163.238 (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks IP! I didn't catch that. I've deleted the inappropriately moved article (honestly, I'm not sure how I missed that, I usually quickcheck for redirects/moves before deletion). Good catch, now deleted. Keeper ǀ 76 14:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Think I've just done something daft

Resolved

 – without keepervention

Can an admin TPS check the history of Beer - I think that, in defending WP:ENGVAR, I may have violated WP:3RR. Can someone check this out and, if necessary, take the appropriate action? Regards, Fritzpoll (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but you have 3 in the last 24. I'd recommend staying away from the article. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The 4th revert would be the violation. ("more than three reverts...") nevertheless, I propose we move to an immediate desysopping. ;> –xeno (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, yer fine. You're not in a content dispute; you're upholding current Wikipedia policy (guidelines? whatever). Tan ǀ 39 21:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not one of the 3RR exceptions though. –xeno (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Good, good - it's just that I can't count. I'll go get a steward to do the desysop with the summary "Wasn't paying attention after 5 hour train journey" Fritzpoll (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

To xeno - I thought that too Fritzpoll (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Common sense and WP:IAR. I guess to be safe, one of us can start reverting the anon user and then block HIM for 3RR ;-) Tan ǀ 39 21:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it an edit against consensus, given the talk page tag? That would be excluded if I remember correctly (got to read before typing) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fritz, isn't that the article that you recommended to Gwynand? I would find it particularly hilarious if you were editwarring with G-man....:-) This looks like it has sorted itself out, markin' it...Keeper ǀ 76

lol - yeah, that would be kinda funny. I think it's the next one on my list to edit, but I wanted to hear back from Gwyn first. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your contrib to J.Delanoy's RfA

Wow. I like your passion. --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had a bad RFA week. You've nominated an excellent candidate, and I felt like saying it and saying why, 'tis all. Keeper ǀ 76 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Try to trim the Support a bit next time -- you're making the Opposes look bad. ;-) --KojiDude ^(C) 15:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Stuff like that is why keeper is up for EFD. Damn filibuster. –xeno (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I just read your support, Keeper. This is all I have to say→ → O_O -- J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna change to oppose if you don't revert that blinky shit ;-) Tan ǀ 39 15:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on, you know you like it... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

<--Re to Koji - I'm not making the opposers look bad, they are doing that themselves. Ok, not all of them, just the ones I disagree with :-) Keeper ǀ 76 15:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• omg have you ever seen so few entries in keeper's TOC? =) p.s. I updated your dash with some newfangled improvements. that'll be 50 bucks. –xeno (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Saw the dash, thanks! And SRSLY? You're trying to get me deleted, and yet you want money? Ha! Keeper ǀ 76 15:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Of course he wants money. Do you know how much it costs to run an execution trial???!! Not to mention the electric bill and the wear and tear on his keyboard and computer in general. And then you have factor in all the money he gave out to pay off all the !voters in your tri...*GASP* I wasn't supposed to say that, was I? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I still say it would have been cheaper to tie him up and throw him on a plane to Africa. He'd be like Chris Redfield, without the good looks and the guns. :-) --KojiDude ^(C) 15:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• How do you know I don't have guns? Keeper ǀ 76 15:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

HEY! I have more article work than J. Delanoy:) Last week was a horrible time to run for adminship, apparently. Oh well. Back to real world work, where I am bogged. Oh and if you are reading Fritz, I'm quite excited about getting to work on Beer. I'm currently in the middle of reading Drink:A Cultural History of Alcohol, and might actually add my first reference from a non-internet source! Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I always prefer non-internet sources; they're more "real", IMHO. Let me know if you have any cite questions about books, I'm pretty experienced with it. Tan ǀ 39 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c re to Gwynand) RFA is fickle, you are proof. Full moon last week, maybe that was it. That's all I need to say about that (although, I think you would've passed if you'd let it run out, I completely think you did the right thing withdrawing). Ok, now that's all I need tos ay about that...)Keeper ǀ 76 15:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have more article work than you and J. Delanoy put together Gywnand, and look where that got me. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I was at about 71% when I withdrew. Mathematically speaking, I would say I had about a 10% chance of passing at that point. Supports were drying up, opposes weren't. Mall - you and I can run on a joint ticket next time. I'll be your vice_admin... or whatever you guys call the second in command over in England. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There's an idea. We can set up a new account and create a composite history for it. You can get into all the adminny areas, I'll knock up a couple of quick GAs, and we should be sweet for RfA. We just have to be careful that we don't both edit using our new account at the same time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh! I'd love to see a screenshot of Gwynand's PC: "I'm sorry, we're unable to log you in. You are already logged in. In England." Keeper ǀ 76 16:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn! Never thought of that. Back to Plan B then, f**k RfA. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Malleus will do all the editing, I will just act as a filter to make some of the contribs... nicer. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

ZING!!! Keeper ǀ 76 16:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's just what I need, a "niceness" filter. Especially an American one, as some colonists seem to object when I tell them that I couldn't care less about their half-assed opinion on something they clearly know very little about. Some people have such thin skins. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(Gwynand filtered version) Such a filter would be quite helpful to me, yes. Especially an American one, as some of them are so intelligent and assertive that on occasion they take issue when I request further details on specific opinions they are giving, normally quite impressive ones as they aren't even an expert in that field! A tendency to wear one's heart on one's sleeve is admirable, especially when attempting to help the project. :-) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Very good! Actually, I prefer your version to mine. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

<---zOMG. What a belly laugh! Sweet Jesus, Gwynand, that is funny. I demand that you follow MF around refactoring (read: translating) his posts. That ought to rile him up nicely! O my God, that is too funny...Keeper ǀ 76 16:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of places even today where Gywnand's niceness filter could perhaps have been usefully applied. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that Gwynand perhaps might work in politics. If not, I suspect he would be good at it if he ever did. A "smiling knife" really. The ability to stab someone brutally, and get thanked for it by the stabbee in return...the very heart of Wikispeak I daresay...back to copyediting for me, wouldn't want anyone here to think I was all about the socializing (or is it too late? :-) Keeper ǀ 76 16:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So far as knives are concerned, I'm content to find myself in what I consider to be very good company.[3] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As of right now, not a single person has opposed since your nuclear support. Coincidence perhaps, but I think it's made a lot of people think - nice one. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear? It's nucular. It's a coincidence I'm sure. And perhaps (gasp!}, it means we have ourselves an excellent candidate on our hands. But thanks for that anyway, helps mai egoh...:-)Keeper ǀ 76 23:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey! Whaddya think you're playing at? Copyediting my article indeed. Just who do you think you are? ;-)

Seriously, thanks for taking a look; all help gratefully received. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I figured if I made one ridiculous copyedit, I could take credit if/when it goes FA, which judging by the good read that it is, will happen soon. I plan on adding it here. Tee hee! Keeper ǀ 76 22:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free, all improvements deserve credit. I very much doubt whether anyone has managed to write an FA on their own. Well, perhaps maybe Giano ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is precisely why he can't ever be an admin, he's too damn good at the content of this place. And, I wouldn't dare add it to that list, I need to do at least two mainspace edits to give myself credit :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find anything else that needs fixing you'll deserve to give yourself credit. I've been through that article so many times today I've pretty much gone bug-eyed. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keeper: User:Yomangan/A bastard's guide to writing a featured article. —Giggy 22:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL! That's a great read! *looks around, all shifty-eyed* The irony of course, is that two of your FAs are on my "articles" list, DHMO. Heh. Keeper ǀ 76 23:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your articles

From here, I'm a little surprised that you worked on an LL Cool J article. Since you know, you're a middle-aged teacher :) Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyedited per request. I'm currently copyediting List of Naruto characters. Manga. I'd never even heard of this stuff until joining Wikipedia. Fascinating and bizarre, but as I said above, I don't have to know the subject to know where to put a comma. And who said I'm middle aged? I'm much more Renaissance than that. I know who LLCoolJ is, I remember when his first album came out, and I disliked it then. Ahem, Sam, you weren't born yet, over a decade earlier in fact...:-) Tis a shame to see one of our younger editors be so ageist... *wink* Keeper ǀ 76 22:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I just find it amuzing...Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like his first album, Radio, was released in 1985. I wasn't old enough to recall that event, but I was around. Keeper's getting old. :P Useight (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit request

Hey, I saw your name at WP:PRV and wondered whether you could copy-edit List of Naruto characters. It's the last step before a nomination at WP:FLC. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it today if no one else has. I can't even imagine a less interesting topic to read about, but that doesn't mean I can't add commas where needed :-) Keeper ǀ 76 14:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

At least for me, I still have bad memories of that time a couple months ago where people were going nuts over WP:NFCC concerns, and this is kinda a result of that. I'm not sure what the current consensus is concerning NFCC in relation to lists (although I've seen signs that it's a bit more permissive now). Rule of thumb that I've seen at least in relation to character lists is try to get a group image that illustrates all the characters. As for the ordering, I've seen that protagonists --> antagonists --> other characters is the usual order followed in most character lists. As for the teams, the leaders actually are shown a lot less in the series than the other characters. All of the teams a set of characters modeled to an extent on the main three characters, and the order reflects that: brash/energetic guy --> cool/collected guy --> the female member of the team --> leader. As for your PC, no worries. Take it at your own pace. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I addressed everything. For the "Other" section within "Other characters", it's for characters that didn't really fit into any of the above categories but were worthy of note. I'll think of an alternate name. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the copy-edit =) Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry boss.

Didn't mean to exacerbate things. Shutting up now. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 20:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Where did I tell you to shut up? Did I tell you to shut up? Corn-fused. Keeper ǀ 76 20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

He may be referring to the above discussion I just closed for you. –xeno (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, lightbulb. Thanks for the archive. It didn't click because my comment was more closely related to the direction that SDJameson was taking it, not Gaz. Again, I'm the most guilty, I'm the one that snapped yesterday (I'd seen enough). I've repurposed my vow to not combat Kurt, it is too aggravating and too time consuming, and too circular. No need to apology Gaz (I saw your well worded thoughts to Kurt on that RFA-talk page). Keeper ǀ 76 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what I did wrong, as I was making my statements in a (very) public forum, and they were not laced with insults or anything like that. It was a simple, straightforward look at how I view that user's "contributions" to RfA. But, again, I apologize if I crossed the line somehow. S. Dean Jameson 20:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Less with the apologies. What is this, some kind of a love-in? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well worded? That was pretty blunt for me. I swear my opinions are going to get me in to trouble.Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

So my understanding from reading the WP:RBK and WP:PERM is that one can request rollback permissions from an admin's talk page, so here I am doing just that. I'm requesting it because I've seen a recent uptick of vandalism on a few of my watchlist pages and think having rollback would help me respond to them more quickly. While I'm more of a content creator than a rabid vandal fighter, I do think I could get some good use out of it. I'm trustworthy, I've been here a bit, and never gotten blocked or anything like that. So, if Keeper or one of the other admins who hang out in these parts would take a look and see if it would be okay to give me rollback privs, I'd greatly appreciate it. If the answer's no and that rollback is saved for people who do more vandalism work or whatever other reason, that's fine, just say something here one way or the other. Thanks! Vickser (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You had me at hello :-). I've already added rollback to your account, you are an editor in good standing, you understand what wikipedia is here for, and you understand quite clearly what rollback is, and what it isn't. I believe you'll find "rollback" to be a monumentally useless tool, except when you use it. Have fun with it, don't get into too much trouble :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I find this to be an egregious abuse of process and move for Keeper's immediate desysopping. (ec's - jk, of course - i was going to grant it too =) –xeno (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You already tried to delete me outright. I'm undeletable. Until the devs find a way to delete me, I'm gonna go down with swords-a-flailing :-) Besides, RFR is for n00bs that don't have any admin-friends :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Keeper! Vickser (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

One day, my talk page will have over 5000 edits too. Then you'll see............... <bides time> –xeno (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This edit is made simply in the hopes that it causes an edit conflict. Tan ǀ 39 22:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)