User talk:Rd232

RETIRED

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Please add new sections at the bottom of the page

• Archives of previous messages: to October 2005; October 2005 to Dec 2008; to May 2009; to August 2009; to 15 November 2009; to 13 May 2010; to 2 Dec 2010; to 11 May 2011; to 31 July 2011.

Retired

I'm suddenly struck that Wikipedia has become more trouble than it's worth. I may return one day; having forgot what it's like (I did before, after long absence) if so I hope it won't be soon. PS yes, the cumulative crapness of and around the current Arbcom case figures in this, as it illustrates vividly how this part of Wikipedia dispute resolution is also in dire need of improvement; but it's more like the straw that broke the camel's back. And I know me; in response to this case I'll have more desire to improve dispute resolution, and it won't work, and be a gigantic waste of time. I've got better things to do, and to waste my time on... So I reject this putative move of mine to spend more time on Wikipedia, with a counter-move that says "nope. The End. (For A Good Long While, At Least)". Rd232 ^talk 11:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Best of luck in all you do Rd. — Ched :  ?  11:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; likewise. I've burned my 4k+ watchlist (raw mode edit -> Ctrl+A -> delete), so that'll help make this stick. Rd232 ^talk 13:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, best wishes. --JN466 14:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

-Take care, hope to see you back soon eventually. Throwaway85 (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see you "retire", I've always appreciated and valued your work here. The frustration is understandable, though. --NSH001 (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hope to see you back before too long. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go, but good luck to you. Always a fan of your work here. Dayewalker (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• What led to this is just sickening. That is all. CycloneGU (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad you "got it". Sorry you have left. Hope you return soon. Ben MacDui 19:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Good luck in everything Rd232. Perhaps given time you'll come back. I can say that my limited interactions with MMN were some of the worst experiences I've had online and am not surprised you feel like this after all that's happened. But seriously take a rest and enjoy yourself and maybe we'll see you again on WP in the future--Cailil ^talk 21:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• You've done an enormous amount of work for the project and there are many that are thankful. I've learned a lot from watching you work and appreciate your generous efforts. I'm sorry to see you go. You will be missed, so please stop by once in a while just to say hi. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• I will miss you RD232. Thanks for all your hard work. Enjoy your break. --John (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• I hope you that you are retiring only from enwiki—you have been fairly active in Commons recently? Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry to see your intent to retire, even temporarily. And happy to see you didn't quite manage to do so yet. :) Maybe just change your focus instead for a while? Cheers, Amalthea 20:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not sure how I only found out about this today, but you made the right choice. Wikipedia has just become a big pile of dinosaur poop and trying to dig out the diamonds takes too much effort. Now if only I can manage to extract myself soon, too ... /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry to see you announcing your retirement - hope the announcement proves to have been premature, and we'll see you back after a well-earned break. Meanwhile, enjoy real life :) --Kotniski (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

AN notice

Well not that you care much now, Mr. Retiree :) but for the sake of formality I'm letting you know that I brought some of the mbz junk to AN...not the block and revdel issue directly, but the fact that she is now using her page to label other editors trolls, complete with pretty pictures. Tarc (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, well, I'd say this breaches my informal email agreement with mbz1 not to use her talk page to say things like that, and the agreed consequence was to reblock without talkpage access. So I've done that (post-retirement, since I'm in a unique position to handle it). Rd232 ^talk 19:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well that solves that, pretty much. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank for (even in retirement!) being there to help, RD. I'd like to politely request that Mbz1's block log be reinstated. I know you RevDel'd her unblock from Gwen Gale in good faith that Mbz1 was leaving, but she obviously wasn't. If you're going to retire, there's no guarantee that she won't return one of these days, and you may not be around to explain why the block was RevDel'd in the first place. Dayewalker (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"in good faith that Mbz1 was leaving, but she obviously wasn't." - I don't see it that way, it's more of a "hanging around outside the open door" than "not leaving", and the door is now closed. Anyway I think it's enough to state here that if she returns, the revdel should be undone. Rd232 ^talk 20:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee closed

An arbitration case regarding MickMacNee (talk · contribs) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. MickMacNee is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After this minimum time has elapsed, MickMacNee will remain banned indefinitely, until such time as he demonstrates to the Committee that he is no longer a threat to the collaborative nature of the project.
2. Δ (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in hostile and uncollegial conduct, and warned that the Committee may impose additional sanctions by motion if such conduct reoccurs.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to the Committee's decision to declare finding 3.1, "Rd232 ... has used his administrative tools while involved. ([1])", I've requested a desysopping at WP:BN. If I had not retired, I would be doing a reconfirmation RFA (it is after all 5 years since my RFA), but that's not going to happen now. I will do one in the event that I return, if I want to be an admin then. Rd232 ^talk 21:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Good bye. Rd232 ^talk 21:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI

I realise this probably isn't what you need on your talk page in retirement, but the must notify wording was nagging at me, so this is just a note to say that I mentioned you in passing in this edit at ANI. I'll remove this (if there are no replies) once the ANI thread is archived. Thank you for all your hard work on Wikipedia over the years. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Self-request for removal of adminship

Further to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 22#Desysop request, I would like to re-confirm with you that you would like your administrator permissions to be removed.

I should point out that - while it would be a self-request - you've made statements to the effect that you would've put yourself for reconfirmation because of the recent Arbitration Committee finding; and you've indicated that, should you desire to return to adminship, that you would submit a new RFA. Statements of this character made in the past have sometimes precluded the restoration of permissions via the WP:RESYSOP procedure (or at least delayed them, while the request was discussed by bureaucrats).

Let me know. –xeno^talk 13:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I already went ahead and did it per [2]. I'll go undo it if someone objects. MBisanz ^talk 14:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for either current or future bureaucrats, of course, but for what it's worth, I know of nothing in either the recent arbitration case (which was closed before this request was made) or anything else that would preclude Rd232 from reclaiming his adminship upon request if he should choose to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. In making those statements it was my intention to publicly commit myself to doing an RFA (if I wanted the sysop bit back). Rd232 ^talk 16:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of We Want Blood! for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article We Want Blood! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Want Blood! until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cerejota (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed article creation trial

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Defunct

Template:Defunct has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kumioko (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of We Want Blood! for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article We Want Blood! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Want Blood!(2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Courcelles 15:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of East Germany jokes

The article East Germany jokes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not the place for a collection of jokes. Also, no references are given.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kaldari (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Rd232! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bird

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bird. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Afd top

I've had to revert your edit to {{afd top}}; as the template is normally substituted, it would seed an expensive parser function thoughout the archives. Safesubsting won't help either, as that would create a static link... or not, which would result in no link even after a (talk) page has been recreated. — Edokter (talk) — 14:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if you think it necessary to avoid it, fine (presumably there's a good reason for the subst:ing, otherwise changing that would be one solution). The archives are noindexed and not normally viewed, so I wasn't worried about that. Perhaps you could follow up my suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-11-28/In_the_news and do something with Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, at least. Rd232 ^talk 19:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(Re mail) I don't really have a solution, but I don't see a problem either; the talk page link is red (and might in future be recreated). Maybe ammending the text like "...the article's talk page (if it exists), or Deletion Review" works just as well. I see no feasable way to automate this. — Edokter (talk) — 11:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There's likely no problem with an "expensive parser function" on all archived AfDs, really the pages will be re-rendered so rarely that it should be insignificant, and "Too many expensive parser function calls" is a relatively high number. (Note also that good hardware/software design should make it actually one hash lookup, which is pretty cheap.) Nonetheless it would be possible to remove the expensive parser function call after, say 6 months, either through templatology or a bot. Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:No drama

Template:No drama has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Betacommand

As one of the admins who blocked Betacommand/Delta in the 12 month period leading up to the present ArbCom case, it would be helpful if you could look over the questions here and see how much information you can recall. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, very briefly:

0. The discussion which led to Lankiveil's civility block is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive701#Block_of_.CE.94_for_violation_of_community_inposed_sanctions.3F; my reduction of it is explained in that thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive701#Block_reduced_to_24_hours.

1. My block is briefly explained in my initial post at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive224#User:.CE.94_editing_restrictions_on_NFCC; basically for simple violation of the community restriction on editing speed. Delta's response ("will quietly take my lumps for that, because I was not paying close enough attention to the clock") is here.
2. no, though there was some discussion on the user talk page afterwards, and much discussion with others about the edit restrictions and NFCC at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive224#User:.CE.94_editing_restrictions_on_NFCC.
3. the block 2 weeks earlier for violating the speed restriction affected the length of the block, certainly, and also the ease with which the decision to block was reached. (Since the restriction was only breached by a little over 10%, without a recent block a warning/reminder might possibly have sufficed. Hard to say now how likely that outcome would have been.)
4. The block I placed was solely due to the editing restriction (speed restriction).
5. If... then... no block.
6. I felt at the time that much of the problem, at least as I was confronted with it, was actually due to the failure of the community to get to grips with NFCC policy and policy enforcement in a really workable way. The room for disagreement was large because of that, with something resembling two opposing camps on the NFCC issue. Delta's role as a lightning rod for the disagreement overshadowed at times the fact that he wasn't to blame for the underlying policy problem. Unfortunately, my attempts to clear up that policy problem (there was an RFC a bit later) didn't really get that far, AFAIR.

Rd232 ^talk 23:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

RevDel RfC

Hey, Rd232. I see you've labeled your account as retired. Nevertheless, I see you've edited recently, and I'm sure you would like to participate in this RfC. It basically puts forth your proposal from last May, which you made after our discussions on WT:REVDEL about removing RD5. Since it's your proposal, you're welcome to make any changes to it as you see fit. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I'm very happy to see someone pick up that loose end, after the effort FT2 and I put into it. However, I don't see the need for me to do anything there; and despite occasional (mostly cross-wiki-related) edits, I'm sticking with the "retired" label/plan. Also, by one of those cosmic coincidences, I've got my own RevDel RFC going on Commons today! :) (commons:Commons_talk:Revision_deletion). cheers, Rd232 ^talk 16:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Man, that is a bizarre coincidence. I guess that explains why I got shivers when I posted the RfC here. Thanks for everything, and good luck with your future endeavors! A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)