User talk:Pedro: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 07:05, 20 April 2009

Wikipedia's Request for Adminship process - The Only Winning Move Is Not To Play

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

RFA

I have been watching and researching the RFA process for about a year now. I have decided to voice my opinion. I intend to do a good bit of research before I comment. Please let me know if I stray. Preceding unsigned comment 00:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is particularly valuablke to get more people providing input at RFA - often it seems to be a crowd of "regulars". The key, as you have rightly highlighted, is the research bit. This often saves having to ask questions of the candidate and in particular thorough research is, in my opinion, a basic courtesy to those requesting the extra tools. Pedro : Chat 06:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from Naresh Gehi

ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naresh Gehi (talk • contribs) 09:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is meant by RFA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naresh Gehi (talk • contribs) 10:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk. Pedro : Chat 10:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move attempt

Practicing the "move" function from the link you sent me, I did the following:

Went to my "Preceding unsigned comment/Links to study" page.
Selected "move" and entered "RFA Formulation" here

The page moved fine and history followed. My question: Do I need to tag the ".../Links to study" page for deletion? I'm not sure if the system or a bot will remove the old name or if I need to request it. Thanks again for all of the help. --Preceding unsigned comment 21:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That worked fine - nice one!; but yes, sorry I forgot to mention that the Mediawiki software will leave a redirect in place of the old page. These can only be deleted by admins (I'm not aware of an adminbot that will clean this up) so you would need to use {{db-u1}} template to get it speedied. I've deleted this one for you (I assume you wanted the redirect gone?) Pedro : Chat 21:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for the clean up. When you have a chance:

please review my recent edits at RFA. I want to make sure they are constructive.
look here and let me know if my rational is sober.

--Preceding unsigned comment 00:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through your RFA comments they seem all good to me. In particular this comment [1] is very strong; I always feel that links to back up your statements can more weight (e.g. "Support - this editor is very good at helping newbies" is fine but "Support - this editor is good at helping newbies" with five diffs is better). As RFA is (sort of) a discussion not a vote counting exercise the more evidence you have (both in oppose and support) the more it helps others who wish to comment.
As for your RFA criteria they seem pretty strong. The onus is on you reseraching things - not dissimilar to my standards. The only thing I'd possibly question is "Leadership skill". Admins are not per se leaders - although there is an argument that newer editors would expect guidance from administrators. I guess I prefer "guidance" over "leadership" but that's a personal take.

Hope that helps. Pedro : Chat 07:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revised my RfA criteria, thank you. I will continue researching candidates at RfA (wonderful way to learn about the various moving parts at WP). At some point I would then like to tackle other areas. I'm not interested in writing articles at this time, nor playing Whack-a-mole with the page patrollers. I might like to help with some basic chores, if you know where I might fit in, please advise. --Preceding unsigned comment 19:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are always tasks to be done. You could clerk at WP:RFP or add input at WP:UAA when you are happy you are clear on the policies. Working at the WP:HELPDESK is a really good way of both contributing by assiting newbies and learning more about wikipedia as well. But don't abandon the main space - getting a DYK on the main page is pretty cool (IMHO!) Pedro : Chat 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA is a little too similar to playing Whack-a-mole;
WP:HELPDESK Would be greak, I will require more experience under my belt;
DYK is definitely a good place to start when I am ready to work with and around the articles;
WP:RFP seems like it might be a good fit. I am in the research mode now. This should be a good fit if help is needed there. It is now on my to do list, Thanks!!

On my current assignment with RfAs:

What advice can you give me when the nominee looks like they might not benefit the project with sysop rights? What is the best way to communicate any found character flaws(that would relate to sysop potential) without appearing to be uncivil or making a personal attack? I have observed those applying to join a perceived club, or gain a title; those gaming the system, editing in areas and creating volumes for the sake of 'having the right boxes checked; and those with serious control issues. In general, how do you best communicate major faults to the group while preserving the dignity of the applicant? --Preceding unsigned comment 16:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback request

Thanks for granting rollback. Pmlinediter ^Talk 12:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for granting rollback. Strongbadmanofme (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both very welcome Pedro : Chat 19:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Question

Hey Pedro, you seem to be the "go-to" guy when it comes to RfA questions, so here I am. I've looked, clicked, and read, but haven't found an answer to this one. Is there a time limit that a RfA can be held in abeyance before it's either deleted, closed, or transcluded? Not that it really matters one way or the other to me, I was just curious. — Ched : ? 21:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted---no. Transcluded---no. Closed---if it is open, it usually closes within 7 days of opening. On RARE cases it might go longer.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Spartacus!.. actually, I don't think it ever officially opened, and that's why I asked. I'm guessing it'll open in the next week or two, maybe after some of the ArbCom stuff has settled down. I just wasn't sure how long things could sit out there unattended. — Ched : ? 01:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an open RfA, before transcluding check with the noms. You don't want to surprise them with an active RfA that they wrote months ago...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OH ... NOT ME! ... I still have way too much to learn before I think about that! (even though I do go through your tests from time to time to see how I'm progressing) I was wondering about the Doug's Tech and ChildofMidnight RfA. I think she/he wants to go ahead with it in the near future, but I didn't know if something like that could become "stale", and have to be redone from scratch. Just curious about the process and all. — Ched : ? 01:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm Spartacus says there is no limit to untranscluded RFA's. The only thing I'd check is that the accuracy of any nomination statements are still true (e.g. if things like edit count / active areas of work etc. have changed) Pedro : Chat 06:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, a thought occurs that before CoM sets this live they may want to reconsider. Good judgement is critical for administrators and frankly this editor running for RFA would exhibit very poor judgement. The RFA will be a drama fest and ultimately be unsuccesful. </powers of foresight> Pedro : Chat 07:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Spartacus (or B-man if you prefer), and Pedro. I definitely appreciate the input. I'll admit that I was inclined to favor the RfA at first, but the more I read and see, the more concerns I have as well. And I agree that judgment is the key issue on this as well. I doubt that it's my place to offer any input on the matter however; so I'll simply wait to see what happens. The key question(s) about the length of time a RfA can sit in limbo has been answered, and I appreciate the time from both of you. Cheers and happy editing ;) — Ched : ? 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macromonkey (talk · contribs)

Hi, could you have a look at this users latest edits. I'm afraid he's breached your conditions. Best, Verbal chat 21:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He sure has! -- BRangifer (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see he has been blocked indef. - and rightly so; particularly with his personal attacks. I've kept Cold Reading watchlisted as I suspect a sock may turn up. Pedro : Chat 10:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wikipediafailcausewehateyou

wikipediafailcausewehateyou.org ;) ~ Ameliorate ! 10:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total and utter class! Pedro : Chat 10:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet say what? What? Ceranllama chat post 11:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those TPS'ers who are unsure where this came from. Pedro : Chat 20:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me again

Hi Pedro, me again. I noticed another notice of the passing of another one of our community members. I remembered the last time that I had questions, you were extremely helpful at handling the necessities. I was wondering if it would be proper to develop some sort of guidelines to follow in this respect, and if I'm not mistaken, it was your mention of this that compelled me to start a proposal. I'd greatly appreciate any advice, help, or suggestions that you'd be willing to share here. Since you have more experience in wiki-procedure, and I'm not quite as bold as others may be, I was hoping you'd have a look. I have contributed to a few attempts in the communities efforts to achieve consensus - but starting one may be a bit out of my league (maybe it's cause I'm just from the wrong side of the ocean ... lol. Sorry it that was a little out of line, but sometimes a little levity helps). I haven't moved to project space, or transcluded to WP:CENT, or even mentioned it at AN. Hopefully if I'm making a fool of myself, it will only be noticed by your personal talk page stalkers/friends. The proposal is here:

User talk:Ched Davis/Proposal: To establish practices to be followed for deceased Wikipedians

I'm not interested in starting up any dramafest that would degrade into conversations around the various beliefs, religions, or lack there of. I'm not interested in a debate on privacy issues, how much someone contributed, or a "That's not what we're here for" argument. I simply think it would, or at least could, be an assistance to admins (and others) when they are confronted with the inevitable situation. Some other editors that I'm considering asking for input would be:

The only reason I mention these editors is that I noticed that they have been willing to share their thoughts on the matter previously. I don't want to be accused of canvassing, so I'm not sure if it would be proper. I'd also be interested in Jimbo's input, but that may be a little bolder than I'm willing to go. ;).

If you feel that this topic isn't worthy of a proposal, I won't be offended if you simply delete the message (although I do admit I'd be a bit surprised). Thanks for your time and consideration. — Ched : ? 05:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need an actual policy (and I mean policy not guideline) on this. It's a simple fact that the longer the project goes on the incidents of well established editors dying will increase. Without clear direction on how this is handled we will see issues on every occurence and at a time that is by defenition highly emotional this is not a good thing. You are certainly righ tthat this needs to be centralised - a discussion at WP:DIED is simply not enough to get full input. Yes, there will be peopel who argue that this has nothinig to do with improving an enyclopedia; however without editors there would be no encyclopedia.

One thing from your page I think needs to be added is removal of rights (crat, sysop, rollback). If a sysop account is blocked it can be self unblocked (sysops can unblock themselves) so if the community agrees we blocked deceased editors we need to look at user rights.

My take, FWIW, is that nothing should be done in terms of block / rights unless we have a good confirmation the editor is dead. This may not need to come up to the standards for the encyclopedia (Reliable sources / Verifiability) but we should have something.

In respect of memorial pages the little blue banner (c.f. User Talk:Jeffpw) was a little design I did for Jeff that I also used for Nightlinger. Seems to work. The various MFD's of User Talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam have indicated a strong community will to keep memorial pages; however remember that in Jeff's case he was a very well established editor and his family wanted it.

Above all we must respect the rights of the deceased and their family. If we have reasonable confirmation an editor has died (trusted user confirmation, whatever) then we are likely to be in contact with the family - and their wishes would be paramount.

I'm horribly aware of the posibility of WP:CREEP but we need to do something. I think the best way is to get a central discussion going. Pedro : Chat 07:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 If you feel that this topic isn't worthy of a proposal, I won't be offended if you simply delete the message (although I do admit I'd be a bit surprised).  Thanks for your time and consideration. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched Davis|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 05:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
+:I think we need an actual policy (and I mean policy not guideline) on this. It's a simple fact that the longer the project goes on the incidents of well established editors dying will increase. Without clear direction on how this is handled we will see issues on every occurence and at a time that is by defenition highly emotional this is not a good thing. You are certainly righ tthat this needs to be centralised - a discussion at [[WP:DIED]] is simply not enough to get full input. Yes, there will be peopel who argue that this has nothinig to do with improving an enyclopedia; however without editors there would be no encyclopedia.
+:One thing from your page I think needs to be added is removal of rights (crat, sysop, rollback). If a sysop account is blocked it can  be self unblocked (sysops can unblock themselves) so ''if'' the community agrees we blocked deceased editors we need to look at user rights.
+:My take, FWIW, is that nothing should be done in terms of block / rights unless we have a good confirmation the editor is dead. This may not need to come up to the standards for the encyclopedia (Reliable sources / Verifiability) but we should have something.
+:In respect of memorial pages the little blue banner (''c.f.'' [[User Talk:Jeffpw]]) was a little design I did for Jeff that I also used for Nightlinger. Seems to work. The various MFD's of [[User Talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam]] have indicated a strong community will to keep memorial pages; however remember that in Jeff's case he was a very well established editor and his family wanted it.
+:Above all we must respect the rights of the deceased and their family. If we have reasonable confirmation an editor has died (trusted user confirmation, whatever) then we are likely to be in contact with the family - and their wishes would be paramount.
+:I'm horribly aware of the posibility of [[WP:CREEP]] but we need to do something. I think the best way is to get a central discussion going. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 07:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)