User talk:Pedro/Archive 43

Crat threshold RfC

Hi Pedro. Hope you are doing well. I'm guessing you already know about this, but I wanted to keep you up to date, just in case. The bureaucrat threshold RfC went live while you were on a wikibreak. It can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Requests for bureaucratship threshold. All the best. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your recall criteria

The last time you edited your Criteria for recall at User:Pedro/Recall was 20:41, 30 July 2009. In the interim, Dlohcierekim appears to have stopped editing, Giggy appears to have stopped editing, East718 appears to have stopped editing, Wisdom89 has declared themselves semi-retired, Accounting4Taste has retired, Barneca has retired, and Tanthalas39 has retired. Your initial list stated "Editors who leave Wikipedia will be removed from the list."

This is an informational request only - I have no intent of asking you to stand for recall, but as a student of the process, I'm interested - is your criteria the same? Do you intend to maintain the list of editors? Given that the initial list of 12 people required a 25% participation rate to trigger recall, and the currently active list of approved editors is less than 50% as large, would the number of editors require to trigger recall shrink automatically? If the number of active editors on the list was less than 3, would that mean that you were no longer open to recall? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As I have become less active on Wikipedia I have been inatentive about such matters. The list should be maintained because as you rightly point out if the list reduced to a very low limit it would make a mockery of the requirements. I shall give some thought to it, and add some editors under my general criteria of not being "wiki mates" but people who I trust not to make frivolous claims. Thanks for pointing it out. Pedro :  Chat  07:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Done, pending editors accepting. Thanks again. Pedro :  Chat  09:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

Your G8 was probably a better tag than my R3, but I was focusing on a different aspect. My curiosity is the log of my move. How did I move a page over a redirect?[1]--My76Strat (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Honest answer - I'm not sure. Something rings a bell about this though - that th elogs can record what look like admin actions to non admins in these instances - it's why the "list of administrators" generates hndreds of people with only 1 admin action. I'm sure someone clever can explain the exact reason - maybe WP:VP/T? Pedro :  Chat  13:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving a page over a redirect with only one edit in the page history is something anyone any autoconfirmed editor can do; it's moving a page over a non-redirect, or over a redirect with a history of more than one edit, that's limited to admins. And Pedro, how come I don't get to be one of your potential executioners? :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah - a single edit and auto-confirm can do it. Well, there you go - thankyou!. And since you want to sit on th eboard of executioners you can. Black hat on standby please sir. Pedro :  Chat  14:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done With appropriate sarcasm in the edit summary [2] :) Pedro :  Chat  14:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

<smile>. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: RFA/Anomie

I went back to have a look at it after the suggestion it was a joke, but I am not going to move it back, simply because I'm not sure it is one:

• the edit summary for its addition is merely "oppose", and the automatic section heading in the name suggests it was supposed be added to the oppose column;
• and more importantly, it seems an odd way of making such a joke, given the nature of automated counting.

Of course, as a support !voter, I hope I will turn out to be wrong. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Joke opposers often fudge with the section edit summary to startle people looking at the edit in their watchlist. Always best to query the participant rather than moving their comment.

Not sure what you mean about automated counting. The bot counts the hash marks in the sections, not the edit summaries or bolded statements. –xeno^talk 13:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• shrug* Well, yes, okay, point taken about asking. I still don't think it's a very clear joke though, and if it hadn't been me querying it, someone else would have -- maybe someone who would have reacted in a stormier fashion. (Apologies wrt to automated counting, I thought it took account of bolded statements.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 13:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's all moved [3] and as Xeno is a 'crat and is aware of the whole thing I think it's safely resolved. Don't get me wrong - it was a good faith effort by yourself and sometime these "joke opposes" cause more grief than any minor laugh they generate. Best. Pedro :  Chat  14:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you recall

Hi Pedro, if you were wondering what had happened to your recall criteria I've knicked them and put you on the list User:WereSpielChequers/Recall, hope you don't mind. ϢereSpielChequers 20:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Touched that you saw fit to base yours on mine good sir. Pedro :  Chat  20:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment

Please consider removing the second half of your comment per WP:NPA. That was poor showing, in my opinion. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You're joking aren't you? That's a personal attack? Have you actually any clue on the backgroud of this (and bear in mind Iridescent went to some lengths to imply that they were female when they are actually male). Take your petty warnings away please. Pedro :  Chat  20:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not joking, and I have no interest in the background. But that is a personal attack and completely irrelevant to the RfA, so I have redacted it for you. I suggest you do not restore it. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And I have undone it. You suggest I do not restore it. On what grounds?Pedro :  Chat  20:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You have lowered my opinion of you. That's all — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Actaully, since you are so keen I've just kept it to a simple oppose and removed the lot. Hope that satisfies - and I couldn't care less about the opinion of someone who refactors others comments without full discussion. Look to yourself would be my unasked advice. Pedro :  Chat  20:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't opposing without a rationale just as bad as supporting without one? Alzarian16 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. Briefly - I would think so yes. Expanded - luckily for me, I'm opposing based on a simple premise. MSGJ seems to think that the candidate is fit for adminship (hence nominating) yet does not understand WP:NPA (as evidenced above, as my comments at the RFA where not personal attacks). Thus MSGJ's nomination must be treated with due concern. I disagree with MSGJ, hence I disagree with their nomination. An oppose without commentary implies I disagree with the nomination as much as a support without commentary apparently implies I agree with it. Given that I went to great lengths to provide comments when I supported, I'm now going to back-track to a default position that (apparently) has become acceptable. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That line of reasoning's rather convincing given that I disagree with the initial premise. I would argue that you're more than capable of judging the candidate for yourself regardless of what MSGJ or anybody else thinks, and opposing him based on his nominator punishes the wrong person, but I'm guessing you already considered that. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I (think) I agree, but one could argue that accepting a nomination from someone who thinks censoring commentary is okay shows poor judgement on behalf of the person accepting the nomination. A shame, really, as generally I find MSGJ to add a lot of value to debates on WP. This particular wholesale censorship of my comments on a flawed (indeed a discourteous) basis has led to a oppose of a candidate - yet reveals the candidates' jugement is quetionable. as well Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it like that. Maybe if there was evidence that MSGJ acted like this frequently that would be a reasonable conclusion, but like you said it seems out of character. I don't think it's fair to blame Redrose for accepting the nomination given that there wasn't any suggestion of anything like this prior to the start of the RfA, especially if we consider that MSGJ's nominated successful candidates in the past. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to say Pedro that I really can't see opposing because of the nominator, or what you perceive to be a cock-up from the nominator, as an intellectually honest position. But for what it's worth I too think that MSGJ was wrong to play the ubiquitous NPA card, and even more wrong to revert you himself. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned about the daft "no experience of blocking" opposes, none of whom had any experience of blocking either until they managed to creep under the bar at RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

Didn't want to screw up the count Thanks for the diplomacy - could have turned nasty! Leaky Caldron 21:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, jusy didn't want to refactor your intent (as opposed to other editors who apparently do). I find it ideal to ask and check, rather than discourteously revert or ammend edits. Pedro :  Chat  21:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Retirement of someone whose name is the joining of two others' fame

Wanna bet he unretires? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That outcome would seem almost certain. Pedro :  Chat  09:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems you have won your bet. He's already editing outside of his rants and accusations in his own userspace/talkspace, so (predictably) this looks to have been all a load of posturing for the sake of drama. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And in other news, sun rises ... Pedro :  Chat  14:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 seconds for being too sharp of a point. Please dull your tip during your block. Also, you need to think long and hard about what other bullshit I could have put here. (By the way, on my talk page, you used "you're" twice when it should have been "your" both times.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

For delivering a two-second block you ought to be desysopped. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

WTF.. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a fine line between a 2 second block and Fetchcomms's five-finger exploding heart punch. ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

See User_talk:Fetchcomms#Not_blocked_yet for background. And Malleus, a lot of people ought to be desysopped. Perhaps you should start with the ones who actually aren't trying to be funny when they block someone. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Next time I want the five-finger exploding heart punch though. Pedro :  Chat  07:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedro, no punch could harm that big heart of yours, which has revealed itself again at the RfA. Well done, yet again!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Pedro. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Steve - received but for the next week and a bit I'm travelling on business so no time. Sorry :( Pedro :  Chat  19:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

When will you be back? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Either way, I'm waiting for you. Don't think I can do this without you backing me. But I've decided to go ahead with it this time. Nothing to lose and all...us two will work on the details and let you know when we're ready. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Just letting you know, poke us when you're back. I'm not chickening out this time. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Steven, apologies for the delay in reply and lack of effort - I've been "enjoying" some travel around our nation's "glorious" capital. :) I'll make every effort to do this tomorrow. P. Pedro :  Chat  20:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. See these pages for more info. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Rollback (Woe90i)

Hello, Pedro. You have new messages at Woe90i's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Motivations on the RfAR

I don't know if you will believe me here, but...

A. I wouldn't be going after another administrator "to get" Malleus. That strikes me as ridiculously unethical. Him being the subject of the block here is irrelevant to the underlying administrator behavior problem. This has happened a bunch, with many users.

B. While Malleus' conduct concerns me greatly writ large, I would not personally have blocked him in this situation. Warn, perhaps, symmetrically on the two users, probably on the talk page thread; not block.

C. I believe the discussion would likely have resulted in a proper, per-process unblock not that further in the future. Perhaps with disputed consensus, but with proper consultations and an administrator who's less involved and who consulted with all parties making the call. I don't think that would have been the wrong thing to happen, either. It might have taken another 15, 30, 60 minutes but would not have substantially extended the block.

D. I've tried to phrase the ANI filing in as neutral a manner as possible regarding Malleus and the underlying conduct. He was following Mkat's talk page and asked me to notify him if the case was filed, which I did out of courtesy. I didn't make him a party because he wasn't relevant to the admin action side of things, only the subject thereof. I kind of expected that some people on both sides will interpret this as a referendum on Malleus, but I didn't put it up that way and I have zero intention of adding him as a party or involving him further (other than the expectation that he will have his say, and that I predict he's going to interpret this as a referendum on him as well). I've been contemplating trying to say that on the RfAR page to discourage others from that aspect of it, and encourage Arbcom to take it up with a more narrow focus, which I think they're inclined to do anyways. I'm not sure how it will be taken if I call that out, though, so I'm being cautious about it.

I don't know that I can change your mind, and I'm going to be a bit more careful with the RfAR page discussion than I am being here (this is public, and if you chose to copy or quote it there I can't/won't stop you, but I hope not). But no, I'm not out to "get Malleus". Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not my interpretation George, it's the reality; you need look no further than User:MONGO's statement, a user with whom I disagreed at the recent GAR on the 9/11 article coincidentally. FWIW I do believe that you weren't "out to get me" in starting this case, but it's almost inevitably going to end up that way nevertheless. And in fact I suspect that I'll have rather little further to say. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw his comments. It's my hope that the accepted case is scoped narrowly on the admin actions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It won't be. But I still question whether you would have pursued this had it not involved me. Unblocks happen every day, why is mine so important to you? Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblocks happen every day, but the "enabling unblocks" pattern does not. It does go back some time. It's been widely observed and criticized. They don't happen with non-controversial editors, in general, so it was more likely that you'd be involved in any test case anyways.

I might not have noticed another editor's block, I do have a tendency to go check out ANI sections with your name on it more than some other topics.

I'm not out-and-out trying to get rid of you. If I ever reach the point that I honestly think your negatives completely outweigh you're contributions you'll know; I'll tell you so, and then file a case or community sanction proposal if subsequent discussion doesn't work. I am paying attention to you, and working to curb your overenthusiasm, but "working" mostly means "reminding you how I feel about this, and that I'm still here, and trying to work civilly with you so you don't just tell me to sod off and ignore me".

I am concerned that your communications style could easily reach that point at some point in the future, and I think I've said so. But you also have moderated your behavior and are more responsive to constructive criticism than you let on. Your interest in building the encyclopedia is clear.

Sure, there's a fair amount of internalized "What the @#$#$# did Malleus do now?" once a month or so when I see new topics on ANI or wherever. But the few times I ended up feeling that there was something I wanted to say about it after reading the details, I told you so. You should know by now that I'm perfectly happy to show up and let you know how I feel...

I don't like you, no. And I have concerns about your effects on the encyclopedia project as a whole. But I respect you enough to be honest and open about it.

As I said above - I don't know how to address this all on the RfAR without risking making it worse / drawing you in more. Which is not my goal at all. If you or Pedro feel that this should be on the record for the RfAR I can't stop you from referring to it or copying it over. But it's my hope to not make it more focused on you. I am considering a less detailed request that the scope be kept focused. I am listening here and if you want on my talk page or email if you have specific responses or suggestions or concerns on that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, obviously we won't be agreeing any time soon, but I thank you for your honesty anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 10:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not Pedro I hadn't fully appreciated the depth of George's antipathy towards me, just goes to show. I find it rather sad in a way, but I'm prepared to believe he's doing what he thinks is right, even though he's clearly wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 10:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:BN

I think we're actually in agreement. You may not have realized that my comment was directed at xeno. The threading doesn't make that clear, as WJBscribe replied to xeno as well while I was composing my reply. I don't think that there's anything uncivil or inappropriate about acknowledging that someone has already made a decision and isn't open to changing their mind. On the contrary, respecting the fact that someone isn't open to persuasion usually cools off the discussion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Steven Zhang's RFA

Regarding my oppose vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steven Zhang, I won't comment at length because the discussion has closed and it would be unfair on the candidate to protract the issue. However, I accept that I worded badly that part of my comment that related to "nomination shopping". I respect you and Doug (to whom I have also posted this message), and I did not at all mean to imply what it appears I did. Regards, AGK [•] 22:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, appreciated. (Thanks to Swarm for the correction too!) Pedro :  Chat  09:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any burn-out tonic?

I think you're not the person to ask (I gather you have similar issues), but... I'm quickly losing the desire to spend what little time I can here. Too many <redacted>s, on both sides of the aisle. Have any advice? Want to commiserate? heard any good jokes lately? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got a little snifter and tonic that helps :). This place seems to be creaking at the moment, sadly. I find not selecting the "keep me logged in for 30 days" checkbox rather handy. No watchlist.... Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't; gout. Yes, I was thinking of deleting my watchlist. And yeah, I suppose one reason I come here is because it's easy. If I had to log on each time, I might just go to the next bookmark on the list (National Enquirer Online). Good advice, as usual. Sorry to not see you around much. I miss the old days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Me too. A few years ago it seemed so much more fun. Pedro :  Chat  22:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this what it feels like to get old? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah. The gout is what it feels like to get old :) Pedro :  Chat  22:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

My Dad says "nothing makes you feel as old as you do when your kid gets gout". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough my father suffers from gout, and has for the last few years been reminding me it is both heridatry and first occured for him when he was forty something (which is not that far away for me). Pedro :  Chat  22:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'm supposed to be calling it "the gout". As in, "I have a touch of the gout". Makes me sound more doddering. And if you're not forty yet, you're just a puppy. I'm not even sure you should be an admin yet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Barely an editor, so I figure none of it counts :). Off to bed. Speak soon my friend. Pedro :  Chat  22:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It did seem more fun a few years ago. But maybe that's just nostalgia kicking in, for a past that never really happened. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps; my memory is starting to fade, so I may not be remembering the Wikipedia of Old correctly. I'm pretty sure there were dancing bears fornicating with unicorns, though, right? Nobody just imagines dancing bears fornicating with unicorns. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And every 200th edit resulted in free beer being shipped to your home by the WMF. Pedro :  Chat  16:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Did they stop delivering yours? I still get mine. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I get champagne now. I'm teh adminz don't you know? Just didn't want to mention it in front of you plebby writers. Pedro :  Chat  22:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Do me a favor..

Come over to my apartment and smash my computer with a lead pipe to ensure that I can retire from Wikipedia permanently. I don't have the willpower to do it myself. Also, it's been too long. How's it going Pedro?Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think he went to bed. I suppose we could talk about him behind his back while he's gone, tho... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, pity. Well, I'm a patient man. Do you have a lead pipe? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just one, and I'm afraid I have to keep it in case I decide to knock some sense into myself and retire too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Good to see your name pop up Mr Wisdom! It's all the same as ever here; wether that's good or bad who knows! I'd go for the screwdriver through the hard drive method :) Pedro :  Chat  16:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal Request

When you find the time, I would like your input as my readiness for WP:RFA. I've been here 5 years, have 12k edits that cover a wide variety of areas of Wikipedia. I took an extended wikibreak some time ago due to simply being burned out from heated debates, so I could re-evaluate how I can best contribute here. Never an admin action or threat of such against me, and I've learned to avoid areas where I have too much opinion or any bias, for my own mental health. My main focus of late has been new article and vandalism patrolling, as well as very general tasks across the board. Because of my experience with copyrights over the last couple of decades, I'm learning to contribute more in the copy vio area. I'm also working toward increasing my knowledge of the more technical aspects, wikicode and such (I've coded html since HTML v1.0, and play with Perl, PHP, etc.). I can provide contact info if you would like more personal information than I prefer to publish in the open. I've other experience that some may consider useful for admin here.

My reasoning for considering admin is to contribute in the areas I have mentioned above. My strong suit isn't dealing with dispute resolution, although I've gotten better over time and it is my goal to develop these skills to a higher level, so I would be very careful about jumping into these situations for a while. My experience is more on the technical side and I would like to think I exhibit reasonable judgement in less controversial areas. More importantly, I think I have a good understanding of my own strengths and weaknesses and understand that with the ability to use the tools comes responsibility. Please take the time to leave a msg on my talk page at your earliest convenience informing me if you are willing to consider this request. There isn't any rush on actually completing my request, but if you are too busy I would ask someone else to review my history and offer guidance. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied on user talk. Pedro :  Chat  17:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry for not getting back to you, and thank you for pointing out my RfA transclusion issue: I was going to get back to you, but I was doing my deletion rounds.

Regarding my comments on my Citizendium Editorial Council resignation, you should remember that (a) that statement was made last year, before I became active at Wikipedia again, (b) that statement doesn't reflect my current views (a lot of my views have changed on the differences between Wikipedia and Citizendium, otherwise I wouldn't be seeking adminship), and (c) it was used as a counterpoint to the attitude of the Citizendium editorial council which explicitly failed to assume good faith both towards its own members and often towards project participants. I was going on to describe how Citizendium's governance was problematic precisely because it assumed bad intentions so much more often than it assumed good faith, and that was one of the reasons I ceased being active within Citizendium.

Thanks again. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'd suggest you might like to answer my Q4 at you RFA regarding the fact you let vandalism sit unreverted for six weeks on a file you uploaded and that you have on your user talk. Best. Pedro :  Chat  21:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually even the blue alien was vandalism, so that's my due dilligence gone too. I've removed my Q. Pedro :  Chat  22:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pedro, on a related point, I'm not sure I understand your note in Tom's RfA, are you complaining that he did not respond to you within 20 odd minutes of you leaving a note on his talk page? I may be misunderstanding what your comment refers to. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, Pedro was alluding (rightly, I might add) to the candidate signing off in the RfA. I'm sure there's considerable reason why we encourage editors to necessarily sign up their acceptances at the soonest instance. Of course, it seems bureaucratic. But it's an accepted form that a candidate displays his intent to respond to a signing request at the soonest. I personally believe Pedro's tone and request was much well in line. Of course, Pedro may reply on his own here. But just saying :) Wifione ^Message 04:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm referring to the part of Pedro's complaint that Tom would be an "Uncommunicative admin" on the basis that Tom took 24 minutes to reply to Pedro's note on his user talk page. --Fæ (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for the late reply - I've been away on business. Fæ, I think what you're driving at is that to describe someone as "uncommunicative" after 24 minutes is unfair. It probably would be, if it wasn't that I pointed out an error to Tom, he fixed it and then carried on without a simple "thanks" or "fixed". I didn't expect a full blown explanation on my or his talk page; but I do expect that generally if someone gives you a "heads up" then either before or after you've addressed the issue you make a reply - frankly that's just common courtesy. Of course I acknowlege that not everyone holds this view, nor that it's probably a general view - but it's my standards. You'll note I'm not opposing over it after all, and that the thrust of my neutral is the blog post. Hope that helps. Pedro :  Chat  20:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Pedro. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. Thanks for the mail - you're most welcome is my response!! Pedro :  Chat  11:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I know RfARB is not usually a hot bed of humor..

But I thought it was fairly clear that Jehochman was being facetious with his comment. Even if the attempt at humor fell flatter then a souffle smashed by a sledgehammer, it didn't deserve the personal attacks you launched at him. SirFozzie (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hochman lied or did not. You obfuscating helps not. Either he protected or did not. If he did - give me the diff. If he did not - admit he's a liar. Or is being a straight shooter just far to difficult for you these days SirF? Pedro :  Chat  22:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Could I possibly encourage you to calm down Pedro? Relax with a glass bottle of red wine, read a book, watch TV. The thing about jokes is that they're fictions based in reality, created to make us laugh. Perhaps Jehochman's joke wasn't the best, but it was clearly meant as a joke. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's likely a little late at night to start considering vino; however I'll take your advice above most others Malleus so maybe a sniff :) I can assure you I'm perfectly calm however. Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just opened a bottle of Merlot, won't you join me in a glass or two? If you see me blocked again in the morning it'll probably be because you refused my invitation and I had to drink the whole bottle by myself, and as a result said something undiplomatic to someone important, so think on. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha. Maybe so, most generous. I'm, always partial to a drop of Merlot as it happens, although my local co-op does a fantastic Rioja at 4.49 that neatly balances taste, alcohol content and budget. Pedro :  Chat  22:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

£4.49? Oop north I can two bottles of Merlot for that. Mind you, it does taste a bit like firelighters, or antifreeze. Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. The word mellowed reminds of how we might speak about a wine. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Congrats. Mellowed should be a guiding word for me and often sadly isn't. Pedro :  Chat  18:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying nothing. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Just one word to Michael though: you'll often see people saying that you can't break anything here, but that's a gross distortion. There are two things fairly easily broken but very difficult to repair: mutual trust and respect. You can't just roll them back once they're smashed. Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Parasite Pig

With the recent death of the author, it is time to recreate this notable book. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to do so if the book meets the Notability criteria (I'm not convinced author dying = notable but I haven't researched it at all so as a subject it may well be fine now). I deleted that back in 2007 (wow!) so I don't doubt that things may well have changed. Pedro :  Chat  21:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Another RfA

Hello, Pedro, I am the beginner in Wikipedia, but would like to become an admin sometime, so your kind assistance would be very useful to me. I hope to count on your nomination as I reach the level of edits required by Wiki rules (soon, hopefully) - have only 1500+ edits so far in English Wiki. I will really appreciate your support--Orekhova (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem IP

Thank you for your suggestion on my talk page. Unfortunately, this editor has been more problematic than simply misguided. I would suggest you look at this page and see how much of a problem this editor has been. We're looking for any suggestions and advice on how to deal with this. --McDoobAU93 23:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't do a thing,and I ain't Tailsman67. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.146 (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to chime in on this as well. We suspect this IP to be related to IP's that have caused a lot of trouble. Even if it's not the same person, (unlikely), they still act in the exact same way. (Disruptively editing the same articles, breaking WP:NOTAFORUM on talk pages, wasting people's time on their talk pages, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 01:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wasting people's time on their talk pages?Just because I write sloppy,doesn't mean I'm him comment added by 98.71.62.146 (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

Hi Pedro, tis the season for mincepies and fat men scrambling down chimneys. Enjoy! ϢereSpielChequers 00:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

And the very best to you and your kind sir. Pedro :  Chat  09:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's about time I gave RfA another g.....

...haha. Sorry I couldn't complete the sentence without bursting out into a fit of mirthless laughter. Hope your holiday season is epic. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I promised you I'd mail you that hammer to break your PC with didn't I :) Pedro :  Chat  09:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

note

sent you an email — Ched :  ?  05:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the situation and will try and find some time to add value (or if I can't add value then I'll try to do nothing). Thanks for the heads up and as ever very best to you and yours. Pedro :  Chat  09:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pedro. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 21:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A question

Thanks for your support. Since you're not convinced this procedure will garner consensus toward a support outcome, I wonder if I could presume to ask a favor. I've not received any substantive questions but one (that from User:Guerillero). Do you have any questions for me? I have strong opinions on many subjects, but this seems to have been boiled down quickly to a vote. I'm encouraged enough to keep this procedure open the full length. Since nobody ever visits Editor Review anymore and this is precisely the forum to review my views, why don't you raise the concerns about which you are cautious? No hard feelings if you choose not to do so. Thanks again! BusterD (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi BusterD. I shall do my best to elaborate further later, but have my immediate family round today so I can't promise. Pedro :  Chat  15:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Enjoy your time with family. I am. No rush; this is going on for another 5 1/2 days. BusterD (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

RfA, maybe

Pedro, you kindly gave a decent consideration to my RfA a couple of years ago, and I see you're open to considering a nomination. Could you give me an assessment please? No rush. I've waited two and a half years since the last RfA, there's certainly no call to disrupt the holiday season. Thanks, Bazj (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to, and the fact that you've asked someone who opposed RFA 1 is an immediate "tick in the box" to use a horrid cliche. Obviously, with the season, I'm rather focused on family (although I am debating whether to put the kids on e-bay at the moment. Ha! :) ) but will respond as soon as I have a smidge of time. Pedro :  Chat  18:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Workshop

To avoid turning the case into an unpleasant mess, all those who chose to chime in on the various page of the ArbCom case should try to be constructive; in this edit, your comment you're paranoid beyond even my paranoia was incredibly unhelpful and, what's more, was a blatant personal attack. As such, I have hatted the entire conversation, but you might want to consider redacting or removing that attack... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As you asked, I have struck/redacted both my comments. Pedro :  Chat  15:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's appreciated! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And here I am again... Please, could you rephrase this comment a bit? The beginning is a tad condescending and the your "slapped wrist" approach is demeaning to everyone - but mostly to you. How pathetic part just begs for a snarky reply... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine. It's redacted. Again. Pedro :  Chat  21:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

RfA, maybe

Pedro, you kindly gave a decent consideration to my RfA a couple of years ago, and I see you're open to considering a nomination. Could you give me an assessment please? No rush. I've waited two and a half years since the last RfA, there's certainly no call to disrupt the holiday season. Thanks, Bazj (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to, and the fact that you've asked someone who opposed RFA 1 is an immediate "tick in the box" to use a horrid cliche. Obviously, with the season, I'm rather focused on family (although I am debating whether to put the kids on e-bay at the moment. Ha! :) ) but will respond as soon as I have a smidge of time. Pedro :  Chat  18:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Rollback Request

I have added something that may be of help to you in evaluating a user requesting rollback already granted in the Portuguese Wikipedia. The links will work as well allowing you to easily check this user's contributions.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 512,599,657) 23:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Swarm did the request, but thank you for that link - I appreciate your dilligence. Pedro :  Chat  07:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

happy to help.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 512,685,630) 10:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

FFS. May as well make it "you are being notified because they edit the same online encyclopedia as you". Which cretin authorised this bot to spam everyone over this? Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

RFA

Many thanks for your kind words! I don't see it as a promotion either - just a chance to do more good. Regards, GiantSnowman 22:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

RfA nomination

Hi there, Pedro. I have recently considered submitting an RfA and was hoping for some advice from you. I am wondering if you think I would be ready for adminship and, if so, whether you would nominate me. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer, and my previous failed RfA can be found here. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm...Pedro is definitely a good choice. ;-) My personal advice would be to wait another three months at least. The community generally wants at least six months between RFAs, and may look at two RFAs in a period of six months or so as "power hunger". It's of course up to you, just my 5c (we don't have 2 cent pieces in Australia). Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Steven. The recent proximity of my last RfA is something that I have considered, which is why I'm asking for advice - if waiting a little while longer would be worthwhile, I'm happy to do so. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Steven is (as usual) dead right.¹ A NOTNOW Rfa in October is, in the current climate, an indication to go a good few months before requesting again. Of course in my day it was three months between RFA's and five thousand edits was plenty.... </end sentimental bitching>. However looking at the positive responses in both support and oppose at RFA 1 could I suggest maybe April (not the 1st!!!). Keep doing what you're doing and approach me then. I really, and I mean really, regret that we have to play politics over this in terms of timing but it is what it is. Please don't take this as a brush off (it's not) and please do tap me up at the end of March (Steve's opinion as a nom would also be greatly valued). Pedro :  Chat  22:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Pedro, is, as always, very kind to me. :-) I'd be very happy to co-nominate you, ItsZippy. It'd actually be the first RFA nomination I've ever written. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

:) Pedro :  Chat  22:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much to you both for your feedback and positive comments, I really appreciate it. As you suggest, I'll get back to you at the end of March. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, you're welcome; don't nuke the place in the next 6-8 weeks! Pedro :  Chat  22:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Make sure you have a GA under your belt by then. Pedro, perhaps we should check to ensure all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed? :-) Lol @ your reference. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No problems there - I've already written/contributed to 4 GAs (one of which should imminently make FA). I plan to continue my work improving philosophy & theology articles, probably indefinitely. I'll try not to break anything in the meantime. ;-) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good. Comment in lots of AFD discussions, etc etc. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that should be fine. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Do some anti-vandalism and new page patrol too :-) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Most importantly, however, just enjoy editing. Adminship ain't fun, power or status. Pedro :  Chat  22:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and RFA is definitely not fun -.- Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'd planned. I'll continue doing what I normally do (I don't want to change my editing for the sake of an RfA); that's what people can judge when it comes to it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Notes

• 1 ^ Because I say so. And WP:OR be damned.

MSU Interview

Dear Pedro,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Rollback rights

Thank you for the Rollback rights: I hope to validate your confidence in providing me with this privilege. Cheers. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: WP:AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kiko4564 (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have been resolved, and you've got rollback so all good. Pedro :  Chat  09:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI. 28bytes (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks mate. I've had enough of this. Pedro :  Chat  22:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Your decline of a speedy delete on Avonko

Please could you explain why you consider three references to a blog and one to a page which does not verify the statement sufficient to overturn speedy deletion on ground G11. You stated "speedy declined - no prejudice to WP:AFD or WP:PROD - asserts notability and has ref". -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize that decline was nearly four years ago?  Frank  |  talk  17:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As Frank points out it was nearly four years ago. Mostly I don't get why you think this was a G11 - the editor proposing speedy gave a reason but did not mention G11 and neither did I. The fact that the page survived editor scrutiny for the four years since then seems testament to me making the right call. Please remember speedy deletions are for obvious deletions and four odd years ago a weak reference was largely enough to escape deletion unless their where other issues (copy vio, attack etc.) Pedro :  Chat  09:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure it's four years ago but the policies on verification haven't changed regarding blogs and references which don't support the statement, or have they ? Yes G11 wasn't mentioned, but that doesn't make any difference to the speedy deletion process, or does it ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Look John, I'm not actually sure what you're moaning about;

1) You either lied or were mistaken about quoting G11 so that implies that you have a lack of due diligence or, well, you are a liar.

2) This is a non-admin action - anyone can decline a speedy deletion.

3) It was four bloody years ago.

4) Yes - policies do change - but more importantly the norms and accepted practices do.

Tell you what - take it to WP:AN and get it overturned so you don't have to go through PROD. Better yet get WP:ARBCOM on board to remove my sysop bit for not taking an admin action. Pedro :  Chat  21:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for adminship

Hi there, Pedro. I spoke to you a little while ago about potentially nominating me for adminship; you suggested April would be good and for me to come back towards the end of March. It's now nearly April - would you still consider nominating me? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You haven't actually made that many edits really, just over 8000, almost all of which are in the last 6 months. Added to which less than half of your edits (44%) have been to articles, and your activity appears to have been in decline since it peaked in September 2011. I wouldn't rush things if I were you.[4] Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Malleus. I do realise that I have a lower edit count than many candidates do when it comes to RfA; I understand that some people might object on that ground. As for the statistics, they can be misleading - it looks like I've become less active simply because my editing focus has changed from the beginning (when I spent a lot of time Huggling, amassing many edits) to now (when I spend more time improving articles, which gets fewer edits). I personally feel that my edits in the past 4 months have been much better than my early edits. Anyway, I do appreciate your comments. I'll wait to see what Pedro says - if he is still happy to nominate me, I'll go ahead; if it fails, I'm happy to forget about adminship for a while and continue editing. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd think very carefully about it. As you may know, I have some experience of failing at RfA, and I can assure you that however you think you'll react to rejection it'll hit you harder than you think it will. So I'd hang fire for a bit, if for no other reason than to eliminate the "less that 10,000 edits" potential objectors, and to put a bit more distance between you and those automated edits. But of course it's your choice; I'll say no more. Malleus Fatuorum 18:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, you might be interested in a study reported in today's issue of The Signpost, which looks at RfA. I quote: "In a direct application of these results, dubbed ballot-blind prediction, the authors show how the outcome of an RfA can be accurately predicted by a model that simply considers the first few participants in a discussion and their attributes, without looking at their actual evaluations of the target." So at the end of the day it's a bit of a lottery really, but I wish you the best of luck whatever you decide. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Malleus makes some useful observations. I'm quite vocal in my opposition to the editcountitis that has afflicted RFA over the last three years; more specifically that it was always present but now we seem to demand ever higher numbers of edits. The quality of edits and to some degree tenure are far more important IMHO. Based on your AFD closes and your steady incremental edits to articles I'd be happy to offer a nomination - but with the caveat that there may be some opposition for the reasons identified by Malleus. I'm also slightly nervous that it really doe sonly look like six "real" months of editing. I'd perhaps say the end of April and another 300 of those slow and measured edits to the mainspace would be more ideal, but up to you. Pedro :  Chat  13:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not commenting at all on ItsZippy in particular, but a more general comment... I don't pay much attention to RFA anymore. Are they really up to around a minimum 10,000 edits now?! I guess I got lucky that I went through it when I did. In fact, I only reached the 10k mark this month, after I'd been an admin for two years. I have no reason to doubt Malleus' estimate of what's needed these days, just disappointed it's true. Is it that a lot were Huggle edits, or is that really the new de facto minimum for everyone? Seems like it would be better to emphasize quality over quantity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Just replying to Floq (again, not about ItsZippy at all!) - to the best of my knowledge, the expected level is still around 6000, according to my research and the RfAs I've seen. Since I'm only just hitting 10k now, and was around 6k when I passed, that still makes sense to me! Worm^TT · (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As of the moment I'm typing this, I have 10 more edits than you. Noob. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments everyone. I'm in two minds about this. The reason I've approached you now is that I have two weeks coming up where I will have more free time (which would seem to be a good time to run an RfA). The end of April would be possible, but I would have less free time then. Timing-wise, now is ideal, but I don't want to do it at the right time for me if it turns out not to be the right time for an RfA. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, free time to answer Q's etc. is a good idea. I think the +10k edits thing is just honest feedback from MF - and I doubt for a second he agrees it's a pre-requisite; just that it may attract opposes. Actually tenure may as well. However, Worm makes a good point and the quality of your edits should (yes - it really should) overcome opposition. I'll find some time tomorrow to work on a "oh nom nom." Pedro :  Chat  20:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help Pedro (and to everyone else too). Is there anything you'll need from me? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Start an WP:RFA/N in you user space and give me a link. Pedro :  Chat  20:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Here you go. You suggested that Steven Zhang might also co-nominate me when we discussed this before; I'll drop him a note too. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm also on board here, so I've added ^that page to my watchlist. Will prepare a co-nom over the next few days (I take it there's no urgent rush). Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi itsZippy, Thanks for being willing to join our dwindling cadre of admins. I wouldn't worry about your total edit count - my experience is that RFAs can still succeed with as few as 4,000 edits if those edits are almost all manual. Huggle edits as you've pointed out can be done at a much greater rate per hour and many voters will give them less weight, but if your editcount includes 4,000 manual edits you should have little to fear from that part of the Opposse that pays attention to edit count (especially if you also have any audited content). Tenure is a slightly more complex thing, some look for tenure to give assurance that a candidate has been active for long enough to have usefully diverse experience as an admin, so you may find that some ask probing questions or even oppose based on your 6 months of being very active. Others look for tenure to screen out the latest incarnations of the usual suspects; As you first edited in 2009 I think we can relax on that score. It has been a long time since anyone became an admin within 12 months of their first edit, and with a first edit in 2009 you won't trouble that pattern. On my experience I would be very surprised if any of our more tenure focussed colleagues was to oppose as "not yet been here long enough" anyone with as long as 15 months tenure, so you should be OK on that front. Just remember it is an open book exam, so reread the policy before saving any of your answers, especially if you haven't spotted the trick part of the question. ϢereSpielChequers 13:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• ^ What he said :) Pedro :  Chat  14:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and advice, WereSpielChequers. In terms of timing, I'm hoping to be able to start the RfA at some point next week (Monday - Wednesday would be ideal, in terms of personal timing). Thanks again to everyone for their advice and support. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that there are some like myself, who believe that far from there being a "dwindling cadre" of administrators there are in fact far too many. Right now I'd oppose your RfA on the basis of recent activity, but heh, I'm only one editor, what do I know. Anyway, fore-warned is fore-armed, so you'll be ready when the time comes. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I understand if you'd oppose; I guess I'll just see what the community thinks when it comes to it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no "community", just depends on who turns up on the day. Remember as well the study I linked to above; success or failure largely depends on who turns up first. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nomination written for you sir. Pedro :  Chat  11:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll just wait for Steven Zhang, then begin. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No probs. You might also take time to explain the history on Mohammad A. Quayum as you did well, but it all looked a bit odd at first glance! Pedro :  Chat  21:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Co-nom done. My first RfA nom ever, so it might not be great. Let me know when you transclude. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've transcluded my RfA, thank you both for your nominations. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"I hope the community will agree that ItsZippy is ready to weird the mop." That's just ... weird. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha - that's brilliant. I'm sure there's a law against wierding a mop; sounds very dodgy :) Pedro :  Chat  18:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That did make me smile when I read it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Pedro. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Pedro. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Advice

Hi there, Pedro. You said I could ask you new-adminy questions, so here I am. There's a notice on the block user page which says that 'block anonymous users only' should be checked when blocking an IP, and WP:IPB says the same. Which option is this? There's nothing specifically on the block form which seems to say this - what should I do to ensure this works right? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That refers to the "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" option, apparently it has been renamed (and the logic inverted) since that was written. Amalthea 21:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Aha, thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Amalthea is quite right. The block page is a bit of a misery with many dire warnings not to take out the US Congress etc. Play it safe, never (generally) block the underlying IP for a registered user and treat all IP blocks with extreme caution (I block anon only but leave account creation on unless it's a school). If in doubt when you've just done an IP block take it to WP:AN as well - there's no shame in asking for another opinion and many admins are expert at things like range blocks. Pedro :  Chat  21:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I intend to go very slowly with blocking for now (and with everything else, it seems). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Slow but sure good sir. Trust me, it's actually surprising how different it is with the tools! I kind of assumed (way back 5 odd years ago when I became an admin) that it was a matter of a cursory check at places like AIV, CSD and RFPP and just hit the relevant button. Heck no. Caution in every move is required. Pedro :  Chat  21:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. At the moment, I'm spending so long before I do anything that people are getting there before me. I suppose that's good - it stops me from breaking stuff and I can see what experienced admins are up to. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiple browser windows help of course, to view diffs and contributions. At this time of night most boards are quite up to date. I often edit at 07:00 - 09:00 UTC and frequently they're under staffed. I also find (on occasion) that looking at recent changes with the admin toolset is a good way of stopping issues before they start - blocking username creations that are just swear words, deleting new user pages that are pure advertising and advising the user etc. - both good examples where we don't need "warnings" Pedro :  Chat  22:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm using multiple tabs; just going very slowly. That advice looks good; I'll have a look at that at some point. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)}

Don't block Qatar either. They don't tend to like it. Odd how you can block a whole country so easily. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That did amuse me - apparently, everyone in Qatar uses the same UP address. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes - The Qatar thing is good. Actually I blocked about 1/6th of the UK once, over the Virgin Killer issue, so I'm not the best person to seek advice on blocking IP's I guess :) Pedro :  Chat  22:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Another question: the autoblock option is checked by default; should I generally keep that on or turn it off? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Autoblock - New accounts that are trolling / vandalising I tend to leave autoblock on. Pedro :  Chat  22:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

:D

Hello. You have a new message at yasht101's talk page. Yasht101 10:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Pedro. You have new messages at Yasht101's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yasht101 11:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again ...

I am every so honored and humbled to have been one of your nominations at RfA. To be able to be listed in a class of Admins. which include 28bytes, as all your choices have been - is truly an honor. Once again your choices have proven your exemplary judge of character. I hope to one day make myself worthy of such company. — Ched :  ?  01:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The irony, good sir, is that the people I've nominated are far better than me. Particularly yourself. Pedro :  Chat  19:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the founders of the company I work for was asked, at his retirement, what the secret to his success was. He said "always hire people smarter than you". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sadly my old boss had a habit of inadvertently doing exactly that, then refusing to accept it--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Admin

A few months back, I asked your opinion about me going for an RfA, you suggested waiting a little and working in some area, which I have done, and that you would consider nom'ing me. I would like your input if you have the time, as I'm at the edge of deciding if this is what I want to do or not. [5] Thanks in advance. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 16:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis - thanks forcoming back to me. A brief review now shows no problems from my point of view. I think it's a neat idea to solicit a few opinions from your talk page thread as well - watchers are likely to be able to give some insight. If I may, I need a day or so to fit in a proper review and possibly ask some questions, so may I get back to you then? Pedro :  Chat  19:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I expect to leave the question up on my talk page for at least a few days before finally deciding if I'm going to go RfA. After your observations previously, I thought it was a good idea to solicit feedback from people working in the same areas I have worked lately, to gauge both the likelihood and suitability of RfA for myself. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 19:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Grumble

User_talk:Tomtomn00#Quick_note. I'm so glad you're the one entrusted with raising real life kids and not me. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Facepalm .. just WOW. No wonder adults are in such short supply around this place. — Ched :  ?  04:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

They're being driven away by the children, who are of course the future. One day. Maybe. Malleus Fatuorum 05:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not an EASY task getting them from here to there. Although there are a few really good ones around too. — Ched :  ?  05:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Joy. Thanks for letting me know Matt. Pedro :  Chat  07:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank you sir for granting me rollback rights. I'll use it only for vandals as you stated :) Yasht101 07:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Dennis Brown's talk page. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 15:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Well I've seen you around and this is just to recognize your work. Thanks for contributing sincerely to the project! Dipankan (Have a chat?) 15:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Most kind :) Pedro :  Chat  15:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Rollback Request

Hello, Pedro. You have new messages at Swinquest's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

swinquest (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're not kidding

You think the true and legitimate school that I graduated from and that the true and legitimate car I drive somehow make me and my edits immature? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 20:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No. I don't think anyone who spells "you're" as "your" graduated from Harvard. And if it does happen to be true then you've utterly misunderstood my comments anyway - I'm hardly saying the car you drive makes your edits immature; I'm saying you make many immature sounding edits and this is why I'm struggling to believe your userboxes. Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe. I am deeply insulted at your remarks. How in the world are my edits supposed to reflect my work and degree? Or my car? "That user's edits looks to me like he drives a Ford Fiesta."Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 20:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear me, you really don't get it do you? You've got two userboxes [6] stating you graduated from an Ivy League establishment and own a performance sports car generally associated with top percentile income. One would expect that such a qualified, wealthy individual would have more intelligence than to create pages like User:Hghyux/Blocked for example. Your "Ford Fiesta" comment simply proves you have not read my concern properly. Pedro :  Chat  21:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you see how you do in my line of work then? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Eh? I don't care what your line of work is. Any user who creates stuff like User:Hghyux/FUNZONE, whose answers to their RFA questions were littered with grammar mistakes, and who makes requests like this is not likely to be a mature adult who attended one of the most respected academic establishments in the world. Pedro :  Chat  21:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody types perfect. I am allowed to have a sense of humor. You're getting just plain disrespectful. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think it's disrespectful. RFA invites close inspection of every aspect of an editors contributions. I'm telling you now that aside from typos your editing fashion, the bizarre sub pages you've created, your language structure and your attitude is nothing like what one would see from a graduate of Harvard. I don't doubt your from America (your spelling of the word "humour" gives that away) but I do seriously doubt you're a Harvard graduate. If sticking that userbox on your page is the "humor" you describe then you might think that as it adds you to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Harvard University it's not a good idea. Pedro :  Chat  21:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

And you typed "your" rather than "you're" again, just above ..... Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fast typing, racing mind, and anger. I cannot lie about my school! Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Go on - what is this "humor" then? You said you're allowed a sense of humour - is your sense of humour posting a dodgy "went to Harvard" userbox? If so, then no big deal. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The FUNZONE subpage. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you no experience with the Internet Hghyux? It's easy to claim you're someone you're not, and the smart thing to do is take nothing on good faith? Hell, Wikipedia itself made headlines once because someone claimed to be highly qualified when they weren't, see Essjay controversy. --Jac16888 ^Talk 21:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jac. A good lesson there. Hghyux - if you have "racing mind and anger" may I suggest stepping back and reflecting on things - and perhaps considering whether your attitude displayed above is really compatible with an Ivy League Graduate? Or if, as I suspect, those userboxes aren't true perhaps being the mature adult, recognising your mistake, and calmly removing them. Pedro :  Chat  21:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the userboxes. But I do maintain that I wasn't lying. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Pedro :  Chat  21:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't go to Harvard, but I do own a Jaguar and a Ferrari. Admittedly one of them is a Scalextric toy though; I'll leave you to work out which one of them that's more likely to be. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

My boy is now old enough that I can reacquaint myself with Scalextric on the basis that it's "his" toy and I'm an engaged father! As an aside, I used to work with a chap who bought a Ferrari (not so much second but probably fifth hand) - he rejected it after a week claiming problems with the paint - in reality it was because his brother had pointed out that a cam belt change was going to cost him about three months wages. Pedro :  Chat  22:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

They're not the most reliable cars in the world either. Years ago I worked for someone who'd bought one secondhand; lovely looking car, but he had to walk to work far more often than he could drive it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

My former colleague, during the brief few days he had the thing, would pop out ten minutes before leaving to start it up; apparently it wouldn't engage any gear but first until the temperatures and pressures were correct. So the Miami Vice "leap in, fire up and screech off with rubber smoke" thing seems to have been a little disingenuous. Pedro :  Chat  22:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Signature

Nice signature.--Deathlaser :  Chat  14:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes sir... There have been few editors who have also copied it in recent times: Soviet King :   Talk or Yell 

It is getting very popular! I was also thinking to go to my preferences and do some change.. Yasht101 16:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yasht101 - please don't do things like this - you're effectively impersonating another editor by placing their sig after comments, which is a no-no. Pedro :  Chat  18:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's proved popular over the years, in various iterations from other editors. Pedro :  Chat  18:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

User:YoterMimeni

I'm concerned about your granting the tools to this user. I initially declined the user's request, and I have no problem with you reversing the decision. What concerns me is that the user posted a new request and then removed my declined one. This seems like admin shopping and rather subversive.--v/r - TP 22:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi TP. My apologies - I didn't notice the decline. I did notice that he'd moved the request around but didn't see your decline in the middle of that. It was a borderline call anyway - I also initially declined then realised I was looking at the wrong diffs and granted, but "by the skin of the teeth". What to do... I'm minded to leave him with it now, but keep a check on his use of the tool. However I'm not at all fussed so your further input appreciated. Again, apologies for my oversight - I certainly wasn't reversing the decision. Pedro :  Chat  06:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not bothered by your decision, I just wanted to make you aware that the user appeared to be deceitful is all.--v/r - TP 12:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers TP. I think I'll let him keep it, see how he gets on with it and turned a blind eye, this once, to the admin shopping. If he uses it productively then no harm done I guess. Pedro :  Chat  13:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Really?

Hi Pedro. Hope all's well with you, I've seen a few comments which show you as close to burnout recently and thought I'd wander by. I just hope you know that there are those of us around the encyclopedia who do appreciate what you do, how hard you work and think you do an excellent job in almost all situations. You're almost always a voice which comes out with reasonable comments and certainly one I listen to. Having said all that, I couldn't let this pass. If other editors had said something like that, they'd be severely reprimanded, if not blocked. As an administrator, you should really be holding yourself to that "higher standard", and if it was a regular thing, I'd be blocking you right now myself. Can I suggest you take a break, step a way for a while? It's not helping anyone, least of all the collaborative nature of the encyclopedia. Thanks for reading. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)