User talk:Iridescent

An administrator "assuming good faith" with an editor with whom they have disagreed.

Archives [Jan 06‑Oct 07] [Nov 07‑May 08] [Jun 08] [Jul‑Aug 08] [Aug‑Sep 08] [Sep‑Nov 08] [Nov‑Dec 08] [Jan 09] [Feb‑Apr 09] [May‑Jul 09] [Jul‑Oct 09] [Oct 09‑Apr 10] [May‑Jul 10] [Aug‑Oct 10] [Nov 10‑Apr 11] [May 11‑Apr 13] [May 13‑Apr 15] [May‑Aug 15] [Sep 15‑Jan 16] [Feb‑Apr 16] [May‑Jul 16] [Aug‑Sep 16] [Oct‑Nov 16] [Dec 16‑Jan 17] [Feb‑May 17] [Jun‑Oct 17] [Nov 17‑Jan 18] [Feb‑Jul 18] [Jul‑Oct 18] [Nov‑Dec 18] [Jan 19] [Feb‑Apr 19] [May‑Jun 19] [Jul 19] [Aug‑Oct 19] [Nov 19‑Jan 20] [Feb‑Mar 20] [Apr‑Jul 20] [Aug‑Oct 20] [Nov‑Dec 20] [Jan 21] [Jan‑Mar 21] [Apr‑May 21] [Jun‑Aug 21] [Sep‑Dec 21] [Jan 22] [Feb‑Mar 22] [Apr‑Jul 22] [Aug‑Nov 22] [Dec 22‑]

Bauhinia Azalea

Hey, I think that Bauhinia on your user page is most likely Bauhinia variegata. The shape of the flower is more like variegata. Its colors can range from magentas to white, and I think the color fits the description best. bibliomaniac15 19:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a thought - although I've also been advised that it looks like it's actually an azalea of some kind. I'll leave it up a while longer and see if I can get some kind of consensus – frustrating, as it's quite a striking photo and it's irritating not to know what it's a photo of. Open note to anyone else reading this – if you have any thoughts as to what this is a picture of, please do let me know! (Taken on Lantau island, Hong Kong, on 1 March 2008, if that helps narrow it down...) — iridescent 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I may have identified the Azalea in the photograph. I can't find the name of the species or hybrid, but your photograph looks just like the one shown here: http://www.ncazaleafestival.org . It's probably a good idea to wait for the input of experts though; I don't claim to be an expert on plant identification. CalamusFortis (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! As I say above, it's really irritating not knowing what it's a photo of. — iridescent 20:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

General note - the consensus now seems to be that this is some kind of Azalea. If anyone knows what kind, please do let me know! – iridescent 16:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(Further) general note: it now seems to be pretty positively identified as some kind of azalea due to the stem. Anyone want to have a crack at what species it is? – iridescent 14:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Re your latest addition to WikiSpeak

The complete works of Matt Groening, on the other hand... EyeSerene^talk 22:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite taken by 'The name is derived from the Hawaiian wiki, "edited at high speed", and the Greek παῖdh, "by children"'. That actually sounds quite plausible... — iridescent 22:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean it's not true?? EyeSerene^talk 22:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of this character, who got most upset when I told him that Pedia-Openess (sic), the "replacement for Wikipedia" he set up after being indefblocked, sounded like a child-molestor's chatroom. (His "about us" page is still one of the most unintentionally funny things I've ever seen). — iridescent 22:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just seen your reply - I always forget to watchlist the talk pages of those awkward individuals who insist on replying on theirs rather than mine ;) That 'article' is truly magnificent; the mixture of absolute sincerity and complete cluelessness is quite breathtaking. I'd have taken it as satire if I didn't know better. Wonderful :D EyeSerene^talk 09:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(addendum) I've just whiled away a happy hour or two browsing the site. If you haven't yet, I'd strongly recommend it (esp. the Policy page). Marvellous. EyeSerene^talk 11:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The really frightening thing is, it's all written by a grown adult, not a 13-year old. (When Greg Kohs is calling you "Kooky and ranty", you know something is seriously wrong somewhere.) – iridescent 19:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's my new favourite site. Even the typos crop up with perfect comic typing, and from his religion article, the linux comparison and the phrase "You'll probably also die" are just brilliant on so many levels, I'm truly in awe. Sometimes insanity is indistinguishable from genius. EyeSerene^talk 19:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

←That page, I hadn't seen, and I'm so taken by it that I'm going to preserve the core passage here so it's Safely Held in the Loving Arms of Jimbo if/when Wetpaint finally shut him down.

Freely we receive so freely we shall give. A lot of people reject the idea of salvation threw faith and God's grace just as they don't believe that GNU/Linux is just as good or better than commercial software that they have to pay money for. God promises us that if we live according to his will and his commandments that he will protect us and keep us just as if you use GNU/Linux you won't get viruses, intruders, spyware, trojans, or adaware that can attack GNU/Linux because right now there are no viruses that attack GNU/Linux.

Absolutely amazing. – iridescent 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah, preserved for posterity! Viva The Wikipedia! EyeSerene^talk 20:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the popular pastime of clicking "Random article" on Conservapedia, too - an excellent way to see loons in their natural enviromnent ([1] [2] [3]). For anyone who isn't familiar with it, Conservapedia is the "rival to Wikipedia" (Alexa rank 45,570)where this was considered vandalism. – iridescent 20:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree...

Greeting!

I saw your comments about how you disagree with WP:FAIL and WP:NOTFAIL. I was struck by several views I totally agree with.

rfa

WRT the weakness of {{rfa}} -- the very first {{rfa}} I participated in was User:KI's 2nd nomination. I asked him some tough questions because I had found him very unwilling to be held accountable, and very prone to make personal attacks. I think I posed my questions in a civil fashion. Nevertheless, when his {{rfa}} failed he initiated an {{rfc}} on my behaviour -- my first and only. I found it very alarming to learn a month or so later that he was a sockpuppet, who had already been granted administrator access, and had it removed.

Since then I have been shocked by some of the people who have been chosen as administrators.

core strengths

I agree even more strongly that wikipedia's core strengths are overlooked.

I agree that stubs on less well-known topics are a strength.

And, I would add that the power of the "what links here" button is highly unrecognized. Wikipedia's links are bidirectional -- a very powerful feature. And it is most useful if articles are confined to a single topic. When one goes to an article, and it doesn't talk about what you hoped it talked about, one of the articles that links to it might.

Biographies of living persons

I may have a different concern about biographies of living persons than you do. I am quite frustrated that BLP, which protects the rights to privacy, and prevention of slander has been mixed with BLP1E. I see the determination of what should and shouldn't be considered a "single event" hopelessly POV. I think BLP1E should be removed from BLP. Violations of the privacy and related aspects of BLP can require urgent action. If BLP1E belongs in policy space it would be far less urgent than privacy or slander concerns. I remain unconvinced that it belongs in policy space, not essay space.

And I have been concerned by a phenomenon I keep encountering. I have come across quality control volunteers who regularly assert that BLP proscribes covering allegations against individuals, even if the allegations were sourced to official publications -- if they hadn't been proven to be "true". That would be, of course, a violation of WP:VER. I don't agree that neutral coverage of allegations from official sources should be regarded as a violation of BLP.

Have we interacted before?

I know your userid is familiar. But I can't remember from where.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

My, my talkpage is getting some long posts this week...

I don't think my opinions on what's wrong with RFA - or what's wrong with Wikipedia - are any secret. While I didn't point Xp towards WP:WIKISPEAK in the long rambling post of mine you mention (it could seem a very bitey page to a new user), I do feel that most of the entries there (whether or not they're the ones I've written) reflect my Wikipedia prejudices fairly accurately. In particular, any structure where this turns into this is self-evidently too in love with process for the sake of process; one of the things I most admire about Gurch's revolution is the very way it's forcing some processes to simplify. (Yes, I know some eggs are being broken in the process, but it's undoubtedly improving the omelette as a whole.)

Not sure where we would have come across each other before (except possibly at RFA/ANI/AFD), as we don't seem to overlap much; were you involved in the Troubles Arbcom or any of the nasty little flamewars that still erupt over it? (I have a feeling I unintentionally helped to kickstart that whole slide into chaos.) Looking over your talkpage, I don't see anyone I've worked with before; although I generally work in a few specialised areas – the "technical" fields listed in this post, and the random(ish) sampling of articles on my userpage is fairly representative – I've dipped my finger into enough ponds that we may well have crossed at some point.

Oddly enough, with Gurch, Malleus Fatuarum, J.delanoy, Giggy etc currently watching this talkpage, you probably have about as broad a range of "high level ambassadors" of the various "quality control volunteer" fields as you'll find anywhere outside the core policy pages; if you want to rant about a particular problem, ranting about it here at the moment is probably a pretty good way to get the problem fixed. Note to everyone; this is not a general invite to every passing sockpuppet to share with me your five-page essay on "why I hate Wikipedia"; despite the ever growing number of people who appear to believe the contrary, my talkpage is not the Wikipedia complaints department. – iridescent 19:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I never kwew what RFAs used to be like. *sigh* I know a lot of perfectly good users who would not stand for RFA now simply because they are, frankly, afraid of what happens there. This is clearly not a good situation. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a flipside to that coin. One of the strengths of the current RFA process (yes, there are some) is precisely its trial-by-ordeal nature. Even the dullest admins tend to become magnets for assorted trolls, loons and stalkers people who want to raise justified concerns about their actions, and a process in which you're expected to remain civil while people make dingbat opposes like this does a pretty good job of case-hardening you against our more colourful characters. (In fact, the permanent flamewars on BHG's talkpage - who is probably the most laidback of all the admins - is a pretty good warning of what will happen.) – iridescent 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A few questions

Hello Iridescent.

As you may have guessed, I would like very much to be an administrator. That being said, you are the first administrator which I have substantially interacted with who does not primarily use their sysop tools for things like AIV, CSD, AFD, and the like.

I would like to ask you a few questions. I am asking for your opinion because you work in areas of Wikipedia which I rarely, if ever visit, and you are already an admin.

1. If I ran for adminship, do you think I would have any chance of passing?

   (If you don't feel like sifting through all my edits, most of the info about my Wikilife may be found in the answers to the questions on my recent editor review )

2. I agree 100% with your post on Xp54321's talk page saying that RFA is a popularity contest. Because I fight so much vandalism, if I stood for RFA, I would be likely to get drive-by supports from many less-prolific vandal-fighters. Assuming that RFA was its optimal condition i.e. candidates were judged by merits rather than popularity, do you think I would pass an RFA?

Thank you for your time. I look forward to reading your answers.

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you didn't get that many reviews either like mine,(check my userpage history) But if it were all about merits and based on your review I'd support but I don't know about other users. You'd probably pass though. Somewhere in the 80-95% range most likely or fail. But you'd get the mop by the 3rd-5th time around,ifthe first and second failed.Unlikely.Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 01:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're planning to run an RFA, now is probably the time to do it. The aftermath of DHM's RFA has temporarily driven off the serial-opposers and the "dig for trouble" brigade. (DON'T self-nominate, though!) I think you'd probably pass, assuming there are no skeletons in your closet, but RFAs are very hard to judge (and I'm a notoriously bad fortune teller when it comes to RFA).

First of all, disregard the remarks above from Xp54321 totally. RFA isn't shoot-till-you-win; as Giggy can tell you, if you don't succeed the first time, they get less likely to pass each time after that, since people coming to oppose you have a ready-made list of your faults to read through.

You know better than me if you're likely to pass an RFA. Ideally you should have at least one substantial article under your belt (otherwise, you'll fall apart on the "what are your best contributions" question). Huggle use will gain you some opposes and move some people who'd normally support into neutral. As long as you make it clear you don't rely on it - and haven't made any mistakes with it - it shouldn't derail an RFA, though. If you have any skeletons in your closet (arguments, blocks etc), declare them; they will be found out, and looking like you're trying to hide something will derail you.

What I can say for certain would derail an RFA now would be your userpage. The editcount, the "this page has been vandalised X times", and most of all "This user is not a Wikipedia administrator, but would like to be one someday" will all gain you opposes on their own - and project a general air of "not what we're looking for" that will encourage others to go through your contributions more closely.

(Although this sounds obvious, you'd be surprised how many people don't do it.) Make sure you're familiar with core policy, particularly WP:FIVE, WP:AFD, WP:CSD and WP:AGF - and make sure you understand what isn't policy (notably WP:ATA in all its many names, but also WP:MOS, WP:INSULT, WP:DENY and many other things people think of as "policy").

You do need to ask yourself why you want to be an admin. In my experience, the people who really want to be admins tend to be very disappointed when they get it, and often drop off the project. While WP:DEAL is frankly bunk, adminship when you get it is really unimpressive - nobody treats you with any more respect, you have to be politer when dealing with people, you don't get any kind of special status, your talkpage will become a general dumping ground for any crank with a complaint, and you'll use your new buttons a lot less than you thought (see my block log — while it's skewed from when I was testing Huggle, in the six months leading up to that I performed maybe a dozen blocks). Many if not most of Wikipedia's most significant contributors aren't admins - of the four "power users" I mention in the reply above, not one is an admin. Make sure you understand what it is that admins do - and don't - actually do. It's not some kind of exalted rank; it only means you get two extra buttons to help with maintenance and a couple of extra features.

If you do want to be an admin, much as I dislike the process you might want to try admin coaching. Look over the active coaches and pick one who suits your style. Be aware that being coached will automatically pick you up some opposes, but it will knock off any rough edges that might put people off you, as well as give you a better idea of exactly what's involved.

Hope that helps... – iridescent 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I really appreciate your advice. (that sounds sarcastic, but is not intended that way) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that someone who might be well placed to advise you is Persian Poet Gal, whose editing profile is much closer to yours. She'd probably make quite a good nominator for you as well if you can persuade her. – iridescent 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I just submitted a proposal to User:Jimbo Wales. Please feel free to comment.Note: Original idea by User:IridescentXp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed your use of my name on this proposal. It was not "thought of by me", let alone "originally thought of", and totally misrepresents my opinions. I'm also spectacularly unimpressed with "this was originally thought of by Iridescent (Administrator)", as if "Administrator" is some kind of royal title. Personal comments of mine are not policy proposals — if they were, I'd be making them on Foundation policy-page discussions, not a "chat" style post on your talkpage. Please don't try to associate me with things I have nothing to do with. There are many, many "cons" to such a proposal — I don't personally think the cons outweigh the pros, but they certainly exist. The most glaring of them, in my view, are a) the symbolism of Wikipedia – a global symbol of openness – "locking people out", and b) the drop in contribution numbers that would follow from it (along with the probable loss to Facebook of the "most edited website in the world" title, which is significant in raising funds and public interest). There are many more. If you really care, you can read most of the arguments both ways at Wikipedia:Editors should be logged in users.

In particular, I want to explicitly disassociate myself with your claim that I think "Users Receive Credit for Work: Why edit as an IP address(a stinking number) when you can create your own nickname(like a lot of sites),have your own userpage and receive things like barnstars as credit for your work?! It's somewhat of an obvious thing." is a valid argument. Nobody should be thinking like this on Wikipedia, and saying things like this is why your RFA was opposed as strongly as it was, rather than the usual WP:NOTNOW close. As many, many people have told you — but it never seems to sink in — Wikipedia is not about editcounting, barnstars, or "credit". If you want to see where this mentality led in the past and why WP:NOT#MYSPACE is such a powerful argument – and have a lot of patience for reading long rambling arguments – read this and maybe you'll understand a little better.

Incidentally, posting on Jimbo Wales's talkpage is vanishingly unlikely to even be read by him, let alone be taken seriously; it serves as a sort of unofficial honeypot for our crankier editors. – iridescent 18:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why I hate Wikipedia

[insert five-page essay here]

Only kidding. *huggles Iridescent* -- Gurch (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggles? You mean, revert my last edit and block me for 24 hours?</joke> (I must admit, when I saw this section header in the TOC my heart sank.) – iridescent 21:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:my adoptee

I was going to say something to him, but I saw that he had "left". Honestly, I don't know what to do about him. I have tried almost everything I can to do some writing, but he would not listen. IMO, vandal-fighting should only be attempted by an editor who has been here for at least a few months, and the vandal-fighter should do it completely by hand (Using the rollback feature is still "by hand", IMO.) for at least 500 or a thousand reverts. A new user (less than at least a month and 500 or a thousand edits) simply cannot understand how things work well enough. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As you can probably tell, I'm getting increasingly frustrated with the whole affair. It's almost like he and the rest of that wannabe-cabal — you can see the full bunch of them here giving made-up awards to each other — are playing some kind of weird game of chicken to see how far they can push things before the lot of them get blocked. (Also, while there's not enough to warrant an RFCU, there's a very suspicious similarity in their editing patterns, spelling & grammar, userpages, signatures, obsessive editcounting and odd quirks like use of the {{talkback}} template — and does this look like a typical first edit to you?.) I honestly can't understand why any of them are here — the vandal-fighting, spellchecking and semi-obsessive minor-editing of Thriller they do is hardly fun, and I can't see why anyone would choose Wikipedia as a social networking site. I think I've hit the limit of AGF with the disruption this crew are causing (and while it shouldn't cloud my judgement, the fact that their preferred means of debate recently seems to be trolling this talkpage is not exactly helping). I won't block them myself unless they step way out of line, as it would look a bit like bad-faith, but I'm no longer going to keep talking Metros (or anyone else) out of taking action against any of them next time any of them steps out of line — I freely admit that my finger twitches over the block button every time I see Kodster & Realist, in particular. – iridescent 01:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am quite irritated at you. "Made up awards"? The only Barnstar NOT on the WP:BARNSTAR page is the "Islamic Barnstar", which I received as well (are you going to use that against me too?) Really, you make my day absolutely miserable. If you're going to constantly harass us good Wikipedians, you can block me to hell for all I care. I'm using an enormous amount of self-constraint not to use any profanity here. You're not helping ONE BIT. Honestly, I would think that you may have some personal dislike for us (perhaps prejudice), but I think I'm going to assume good faith. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 23:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say, I would not blame you a bit if you fully protected this page and made a separate talk page for non-admins so you aren't always being annoyed by "you have new messages" every five minutes. Although now that Neo whatever and Xp have left, it may not be quite as bad. Xp got sucked into their barnstar-giving cabel; he gave me like 17 barnstars (not literally, thank God) all at once. He did the same to Realist and Realist put them all in his awards page. While I know that it is not probably good to judge him, I think it is a little strange when you have 20 barnstars and half of them are given by the same person. I would have to agree that you and/or I would not be appropriate ANI whistle-blowers for them, but I have ANI on my watchlist, and I know that sooner or later they will show up on it when they start trolling someone who isn't as patient as you are. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously, what is up with the whole "barnstar" giving thing? All the barnstars I've ever received are on my user page, all seven of them (actually I've received about two more but I just refused to put those up because they were, essentially, given by the barnstar-giving cabal). I've been here for two and a half years (since 12/19/05) and have seven while these users have several dozen in 3-4 months? I'm not saying that I want a ton of barnstars, I'm just saying that they lose all "value" lately. The barnstars I received (and other "old farts" too) have been for significant work like the checkuser investigation I dug up or the massive clean-up I did on a bunch of articles that Redvers found. Today, though, it appears that a barnstar is just because you're a "Wikifriend" of another user. *Shrug* Metros (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My star compromise is to only "put them up" if they come with an explanation of what they're for attached. (Each barnstar on my userpage functions as a link to what it was awarded for.) I'm considering taking the table down altogether, but at present have settled for burying it at the bottom of the page. Incidentally, have you noticed this trainwreck of a page? Like a "worst of Esperanza" theme park... – iridescent 12:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The "best" is User_talk:Nothing444#3000th_Edit_Party_to_Template:Ex.2C_and_of_course_Template:Ex for obvious reasons. Speaking of all this, another telling fact is how frequently these users have to archive their pages. I have 10 archives right now for 2.5 years with a lot of administrative work discussed in there. These users are archiving on a weekly basis because they spend a large portion of their editing hours talking to each other. On top of that, the gaudy, 3-4 lines of signatures they all use fills the kb count in their talk pages in just a few edits. Look at this, for example. I took out Xp54321's signature on 5 posts and lost 1,218 bytes. And, of course, he got upset a few weeks back when I did that. Metros (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Oh gee, check out this user's barnstar page. [Giggle giggle].</sarcasm> What the hell? Seriously, let's talk about other users behind their backs? Let's persecute them because of the AMOUNT OF BARNSTARS THEY HAVE! Really, please stop accusing us of being some "Barnstar Cabal", our "gang", our "mop", our "club". There's no club. RyRy5 specifically helps people, and people thank him in return. Do vandals get a lot of barnstars? No. Are they better because of it? No. Just because you have seven barnstars doesn't mean you're better than us IN ANY WAY. It's just that no one thanks you enough for your work. What are we supposed to do about that? We don't ASK people to give us barnstars! That's the point! Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 00:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm WAY past the point where I should give a damn about your adminship or anything. There's something wrong with the admin process, if they let people like you in there. At least there are good admins to balance you guys out. Admins aren't better than users in any way. You have more tools, and that means nothing. And you can't say that you've been here longer, b/c that's equivalent to saying that you have more edits (ring a bell)? The only way you can say that you're a better user is through the QUALITY of your edits, and your decision making process. Obviously, you are way out of line. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 00:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still archiving to archive 4 — albeit big archives, but you've seen for yourself the length of some of the posts here — and Xp's up to archive 8 already (RyRy5 is up to archive 16). After that whole User talk:Jimbo Wales fiasco I really don't want any more communication with any of this mob as I know I'll be tempted to solve the problem the easy way. Incidentally, Xp's "retirement" lasted 1 hour & 40 minutes.

I suspect that at some point, one of them will run for RFA and unwittingly provide enough evidence for an RFCU. As I said above, I no longer AGF with this lot; I very strongly suspect that there will be a whole drawer of socks flushed out (again) the moment it happens (again). – iridescent 14:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is it with you talking behind our backs? Why can't you be good admins, and stop acting in bad faith and biting the newcomers (and "lesser editors", as you seem to think of us). Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 00:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I archive once a month, and none of my archives are bigger than 75000 bytes. My opinion with Realist and Friends™ is that they all know each other in real life, so a RFCU would probably be inconclusive, but you never know... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1, 2, 3. AGF only takes you so far. – iridescent 14:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Um I know you probably don't aren't going to believe me but and I never knew R2,R5,K or any other editor here before I joined WIkipedia. And what's with this deal about barnstars? IMO they're not worth much. I was just trying to be friendly. *sigh* J un-adopt me if I'm going to impede your future RfA. I wouldn't want to get in the way. Anything else Iri or M you'd like to say?Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 22:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I just came here after being informed by Xp. "I freely admit that my finger twitches over the block button every time I see Kodster & Realist, in particular." Im seriously NOT impressed with that comment. If you have a problem with Me Honey just say so on my talk page. Dont slag me off behind my back accusing me of all sorts. Seriously, if I hear stuff like that again I will personally insist on a checkuser. How dare you. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I second R2's opinion above.Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 22:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if there's anyone who knows Realist2 better than I; after initially falling out over his comments on Talk:The Beatles, we worked together to get [[A Hard Day's Night {film)]] to WP:GA status. In between all this, he was hideously abused himself and nearly left the project because of that. While I may not agree with everything he says and does, I doubt he has either the sophistication or the need to go sockpuppeting, and certainly User:Kodster he is not. To quote a famous decision in copyright law "the parties are advised to chill."

Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 908, 296 F.3d 894 (9th Circuit 2002). Realist2 isn't going to get a WP:RFCU to vindicate himself, because that's not the way we work. If there is evidence, please let's see it. --Rodhullandemu 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ive already demanded that my account is checked on the admin noticeboard. After making 17,000 edits, getting 6 articles to GA, starting 2 wikiprojects I wont have my name muddied by that alleged crime or some bitter hormonal Admin. Retract the comment or Im seriouly going to push for a checkuser and we can expose your blatant Bad Faith.— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just came here, seeing a link to this section. I'd just like to say a few things. I'm one of those users who archives every few days. Well, it's not because I'm "chatting with my friends", I'v just been making constructive discussions that actually teach me. When I was first at Wikipedia (I'm sure you all remember), I was almost like Xp here. But I'v been improving. My adoption with User:Steve Crossin is going better than I thaught. I used to "chat with my friends" because I didn't know much about Wikipedia. I used to say "Look, I redesigned my user page", and nonsense like such, but now I know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a myspace. -- RyRy5 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Hormonal"?? Excuse me? - Alison ^❤ 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say that? --RyRy5 (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

R2 said that R5.Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 23:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Iridescent, am I part of this "mop" or "cabal"? -- RyRy5 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have one thing to say to Iridescent: April Fool's Day was 2 months ago. How can you suggest that Realist2 and I are the same people??? He's one of those Wikipedians who's actually helped me here, and I admire him greatly. Firstly, I had nothing to do with that "barnstar" thing, so don't stick that on me. Secondly, that is NOTHING, IMO, to block someone on. Okay, let's quote Iridiscent: "there's a very suspicious similarity in their editing patterns, spelling & grammar, userpages, signatures, obsessive editcounting and odd quirks like use of the {{talkback}} template". Let's take that apart. By looking at my editing patterns, you'll see that I am a Beatles fanatic; I have worked extensively on "Rain", "A Day in the Life", "The Beatles", etc. The ONLY reason that Realist2 can be found editing those pages is because I specifically asked him to help with them. In the same way, he specifically asked me to help him with Thriller (album), Michael Jackson, etc. Are you saying that Wikipedians can't help each other with articles, because they might share the same editing patterns? Next: Spelling and grammar. I follow Manual of Style. If I have to use British spelling for an article, fine. If I have to use American spelling (my native), fine. I adapt. So I don't see what that's ablout. Userpages: RyRy5 designed all of ours (if you bothered to look at the bottom of the pages]], so they follow the same basic pattern. Signatures, Realist2 designed Xp54321's signature, and theirs are completely different from mine. Let's see: obsessive editcounting. You've based that (I'm sure) on my excessive use of AWB to (I admit) do unnecessary edits like deleting white space and such. I was warned once on such a matter, and I stopped. Look at this. Average edits per page: 6.85. And it's only that low because I used AWB in the beginning to make inconsequential edits. I of all people do not hold editcounts to be of any importance. If I did, then I would have 6.85 times the amount of edits that I do now. :) Now, "odd quirks like use of the {{talkback}} template". I've used that less than five times, and I've since stopped. I was trying to reorganize my talk system, but it didn't work, so I stopped. I think Xp54321 still uses it, but I'm not sure. Anyway, that ends my tirade, feel free to comment. I'll be glad to answer. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 23:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am quite disappointed with you, Iridescent. I applaud Rodhullandemu for understanding that AGF means something, especially when users are acting in good faith. Rodhullandemu, IMO, is a true administrator, and I thank him for all the help he's done for Realist2, I, and the rest of the Wikipedia community. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 23:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks for your explanation for all of that K. It probably explained a lot. Anyways I support what K said above.A for AWB I have decided to stop using as IMO nowadays there's no need for it. As for "talkback", I use it as a quick way of informing users or responses. Are there any other involved users? As i'd be happy to inform them of this thread.Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 23:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Near the top you will see K's recent cmt.I completely agree with it. I'm actually supposed to be working on my report but it appears that without ignoring it(which would severely disappoint my science teacher, who's my favorite teacher, and drop me 8 percentage points!!! on my grade from a 101.7 to a 93.5) I would return indefed not in compliance with policy and quite a few of my fellow Wikipedians had met the same fate or had left!Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 23:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Iridescent you have managed to insult Me, Xp54321, Kodster and you were less than nice when talking about RyRy5 talk/user page. Im glad my connection went down for 15 minutes because I was going to blow a fuse. Seriously dont say things like "I honestly can't understand why any of them are here — the vandal-fighting, spellchecking and semi-obsessive minor-editing of Thriller they do is hardly fun, and I can't see why anyone would choose Wikipedia as a social networking site." ever again. You have no idea how hard I work on these articles "IN MY SECOND LANGUAGE". They were in a hell of a worse state before I got to them. Im glad to know your discouraging, vandal-fighting and spell checking on wikipedia, seriously, you should know better. Jimbo would be proud. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I seriously can not think of anything else to say. Right on target R2,right on target.Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 00:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you boys give it a rest now, eh? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Malleus, when an Admin slags off 4 good faith editors behind their back with ZERO proof, these things happen. Im just waiting for an apology/retraction and I will be happy. I would like to carry on with my work, but im scared that Vandal reversal, spell checking, article building, working with Kodster will be reviewed as edit counting, bad work, or even arouse suspicitions of SP. Until I know these concerns are gone Im scared to edit.— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 01:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with R2 except for the scared part.:)Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 02:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On A lighter note, im happy to know you,ve spent the time checking my barnstars, user page and edit history. As for my very first edit (which you seem to find odd), when I first started wikipedia, my main interest was Michael Jackson. I was just an IP adress and couldn't make edits to the article, only the talk page. Eventually I realised I wanted to stay and edit the article = I needed an account. I started a conversation/"consensus building task" as my IP, then a few days later after my account was set up and the conversation had died down I made that edit. I started the conversation as an IP then made that comment after I had set up my account a few days later. Since making my account on May 27, 2007 I have never again used my IP (unless accidently lol). If you still have further interest in me I can send you regular updates on my stats. Everytime my edit count rises 1000, I get a Barnstar, get an article to GA, review an article for GA or start a wikiproject I could let you know?

You've obviously been doing your research on me, poorly, I might add, if you think im here for some "social" aspect. Yes I have friends here who love me dearly but I also work hard aswell. Your comments about me "editing Thriller 1000 times" or whatever are really rude and the sock allegation... you should just know better. Also, no, Im never going to run for RfA so don't worry, I wouldn't dare give you the satifaction of lying about me again. Besides, Ive seen some of the people who has passed/failed RfA and the system obviously has its flaws.

Im going to leave you to yourself now, Im not expecting an apology of you, admins rarely do. Just stop lying about me because its hurtful. Cheers. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 05:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

What exactly is everyone "demanding an apology" demanding an apology for? Accusing a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppeteer of sockpuppetry? Accusing someone who thinks this is an acceptable comment of not understanding Wikipedia policy? Saying someone with more than 40% of their edits to their own user page is violating WP:NOTMYSPACE?

RyRy5, I'm not accusing you of anything. You'll notice, I hope, that at no point has anyone actually mentioned you. The reason your barnstar page came up is not because of any problem with you, but with the people adding stars to it; on a quick skim through it, just among the names I recognise I see four confirmed sockpuppeteers. As you know, you had problems a couple of months ago, but I'm not aware of any issues affecting you at present.

Everyone above who seems to think "admin" is some kind of superpower, take the time to read WP:SYSOP and see what exactly it is that admins do. Wikipedia is not run like a chat board where moderators restructure and remove posts, ban people they don't like, rewrite page histories and generally have more authority than normal users. Wikipedia adminship means a couple of extra technical powers to clean up vandalism and prevent disruption — it used to be given to everyone, and was limited purely because some people were using the admin buttons disruptively.

Somewhere in the conversation above I posted a link to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Archive1 and I really, really urge everyone who's feeling hard done by at being accused of social networking to read What Wikipedia is not, which is a non-negotiable core policy (the very first link on WP:FIVE, in fact). In particular "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. [...] The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." – iridescent 16:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

lridescent does make a good statement. I understand you weren't accusing me, lridescent. And I just wanted to add to when you said "take the time to read WP:SYSOP and see what exactly it is that admins do". Well, WP:DEAL is something good to read also. It sounds like in this discussion that admins are these "important people". Well, no! Everyone is basically an equal. I didn't find it good for Realist2 to lose his WP:COOL because your an admin, lridescent. Your just doing what your supposed to do. It may sound harsh at times but that's just what happens. -- RyRy5 (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the Stanford Prison Experiment‎. Daniel (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that RyRy has come along in leaps and bounds in a very short time, btw. Orderinchaos 15:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How can you say that Realist2 does "semi-obsessive" edits on Thriller, and then use WP:MYSPACE? BTW, spell-checking and vandal-fighting has a purpose. See here. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 19:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, "a bit like bad-faith". Hmmm.... Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 19:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Iridescent is taking the definition for "automated tools" here a bit too literally. That page really should have a Humor Template. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 19:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Restored Covenant Churches of God

Hi there, as per your question, i replied in a new db-spam, so you can review the reasoning behind it. I admit the first reasoning was a bit below par, since I thought it was kind of clear cut. Cheers, Shoombooly (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Already declined. Stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. There is absolutely nothing in policy against writing an article about yourself or your employer, and even if there were it would not be a speedy criteria. Take it to AFD if you want it deleted. While you're here, would you care to explain exactly how this is a valid deletion nomination? – iridescent 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you hadn't asked a question in your declination, i'd not have answered that way. You can ask questions on my talk page like everyone else. I guess your view on advertising is different than mine, and since you are in charge here, i will take your advice and take it to AfD, because i believe that article is not at all suitable for WP. Also, asking instead of ordering works better. Kind regards, Shoombooly (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. since you amended your answer, i will amend mine: if you read my first post here you would see i already covered, and admitted being wrong about, the first nomination rationale. Incidentally, your tone does not become a WP admin. If you look at my edit history, and what i'm involved in, you should notice i try to better this encyclopedia, and have no intention of disrupting it in any way. If you believe a half finished, badly written self promotional ad for an unknown, non notable church is suitbale for WP, that's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, as I am entitled to mine. Shoombooly (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be bitey but so be it. If you seriously think "half finished and badly written" is a reason for deletion, you should not be involved in deletion in any way whatsoever. I don't know (or particularly care) if you intentions are the best or the worst in the world, but you've totally missed the point of Wikipedia. "Half finished and badly written" means it needs improving, not deleting. Unfortunately, in this case you're not "entitled to your opinion", as your opinion is violating the fundamental core principle of a collaborative work. – iridescent 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Shoombooly, please listen to what iridescent is saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not all of what i said. My point was that it was a badly written advertisement. I've let plenty of badly written, unfinished articles stay. Just not this one, because i think it's an advertisement. Attach all the conclusions you want, if you only select the pieces you need to villify me, it's easy to label me as a vandal, which I am not. Anyway, this is a waste of time, as you ignore half of what i write. If you want an apology for the second db-spam attempt, I'm sorry I did that, it was clearly the wrong thing to do, my mistake, won't happen again. I won't AfD either until i talk to some others, so i can see how wrong i might be in this instance. Regards, Shoombooly (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: I was going to let it go anyway, Gwen. I just don't like being talked to like that for little reason.

Yeah but beneath that tacky ad copy was a big, docking assertion of notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose we take that discussion away from this page, probably better for all of us. Shoombooly (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you've invited me to review your edit history, I have, and I what I see is someone who doesn't understand the speedy deletion process. In the last couple of edits alone, I see "Don't know what it means" and "Que? expand whathandler?? No context" as well as the "Church" CSD discussed above. Speedy deletion is for a very limited number of absolutely indisputable cases and nothing else. – iridescent 03:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I can see from your talk page & his that you (and many others) have tried and apparently failed to explain the CSD criteria to this user already - can I leave this with you? I have more than enough rambling flamewars on this page to be getting on with... – iridescent 03:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I try to learn from my mistakes. Also, I have no intention of flaming, I already apologized twice, and proposed to stop the argument. And I brought Gwen in because i value her opinion. If i make mistakes, it is inexperience, for which i will apologize a 3rd time. Let's bury the hatchet? Shoombooly (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As a token of good will i want to let you know that the flower on your user page is most likely an Azalea, like this one. See also [4], different color, but same morphology. Also the stem (hairy) and leaves in background are almost certainly Azalea. Cheers, Shoombooly (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Morten Keiser-Nielsen

Please see my reply on my talk page. TN‑X-Man 04:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Have replied on your talkpage to keep the conversation together – iridescent 13:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Looks like you're taking a bit of a beating lately for having the gumption to stand tall against the MySpace set. If it means anything, here's a barnstar from a somewhat old and burned out Wikipedian thanking you for the effort - it's only a small one though, I wouldn't want to get carried away with the social networking! :o east.718 at 01:17, June 12, 2008

Agree with east718 here. While I don't agree with everything you said (I don't think a checkuser should be considered or blocks right now), I do appreciate you standing up to say it. Metros (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I enjoyed the 200k talks about Huggle bug fixes more. For the first time this week, I really appreciate what it must be like to be Giggy or Slim. – iridescent 14:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What, you wish you were inundated with peer review requests? Bah! giggy _(:O) 09:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"WTF - I'm away for 12 hours and my talkpage has gone up to 100k of this?" Yeah but it's only like 50K if take out the signatures ;) Metros (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's going on my quotes page Metros. Spot On. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Smile

You're on candid AN ..well sort of. Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I had noticed... Read the Thread that Wouldn't Die a few above this one... – iridescent 14:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My RFB

Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you're watching this, but if you are I'm genuinely sorry this one didn't work (although I did start off on the fence). – iridescent 14:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm watching alright. Perhaps next time, if there is one. Useight (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article restoration request

Yo Iridescent, I found you through WAWWPCODA; could you possibly restore the last version of list of anarchists to User:SwitChar/Anarchlist/Original? We are currently developing a thoroughly referenced replacement for the original here, and there is no sense in re-inventing the wheel with respect to descriptions and references. Muchas gracias, Skomorokh 03:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Has been done (with a caveat). Rather that recreate the article, I've recreated it as an intentionally blanked page, with the full history of the article restored; this is the most recent "full" version. (It won't display fully due to the AFD template, but click "edit this page" and the source text is there.) I've done it this way as some of the references are blocked by the spam filter, and it seems that if you're planning to reconstruct it, it's more useful to you to be able to see what they were. To recreate it as an article that will display properly, revert to the version I link to above and remove the AFD template, the categories & the bad links.

The usual warning about keeping AFD-deleted material floating around for any length of time still applies... – iridescent 13:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much. I've done this before so I'll make sure we're careful with the BLP and dodgy references issues. Gratefully, Skomorokh 15:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Venting

AAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!. That's all I have to say. I'm going offline (mostly) for the weekend. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Poor Talkpage assessment of User talk:Keeper76

On hold: This article is currently awaiting improvements before pass/fail.

I have carried out an assessment of this talkpage as per the criteria at WP:Poor Talkpage Candidates. While this page generally meets the Poor Talkpage Criteria, there are certain issues that need to be addressed before I would feel comfortable passing it:

1. Accusation of ageism? 
2. Accusation of picking on user due to their custom sig? 
3. Accusation of misuse of admin tools? 
4. Faint insinuations that you're somehow part of a conspiracy? 
5. At least three posts about you in ALL CAPS to WP:ANI? 
6. So many different fonts used in a single section thanks to all the signatures that it crashes the page's cascading style sheet? 
7. Page contains:
   • at least one pornographic image? 
   • At least one link to an attack site? 
   • At least one link to a post about your conduct to User talk:Jimbo Wales? 
8. Use of the following phrases:
   • "If this continues I will remove your access to Huggle"? 
   • "If this continues I will remove your access to rollback"? 
   • "If this continues I will remove your access to Twinkle"? 
   • "If this continues I will have no alternative but to block you"? 
9. At least one person referring to a conversation that took place on another page over two weeks ago, with no link to said conversation, expecting you to know what they're talking about? 
10. At least one conversation involving six or more editors, at least three of which are arguing over a petty point of trivia? 

All of the elements currently lacking are fairly easily addressed, and overall the general quality of this talkpage is easily poor enough to meet Wikipedia's standards. If the issues raised above are addressed within a week of this review, I will have no hesitation in passing this as a Poor Quality Talkpage. If you are having trouble in raising the number of flames on this page, you may wish to consider asking some of the editors posting here or here to assist. – iridescent 14:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

oh em gee, Iridescent, I haven't laughed so hard in days. You've earned a barnstar for that one. I'm not giving it to you though, wouldn't want you to surpass your "admirers". :-) I'll look for some diffs to clear up those failings...I'm sure I can find the ANI posts and the "abused the tools" post...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't give me a barnstar. I haven't found your secret page yet. – iridescent 15:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

But you welcomed 100 new users, didn't you? And signed my autograph book? And logged on this morning? And made an edit? And then made a second edit? All qualifying events fer shur. More seriously, (barely), is it true that in order to use the newest version of Huggle you have to have rollback? That is incredibly good news in my opinion, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - and Gurch has set it so the earlier versions won't work, so non-rollback users can't now access it at all. He's also set it so it always adds "using Huggle" to the edit summary and users can't override this in preferences, which should put a stop to the "is it misuse of Huggle or just misuse" questions. As I think I may have said before, I am very impressed with how quickly Gurch is fixing every issue raised about Huggle. – iridescent 15:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that is a beautiful, beautiful thing. Yay Gurch! That has completely made my weekend. I'm pretty sure you played a large role in getting that changed, so Yay Iridescent as well! That's like 14 barnstars earned, on the weekend no less! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

At the going rate, I think WP:AWC owes me 65 barnstars. I think it would be a lovely surprise for BHG if she got back from her holiday to find 141 barnstars on her talkpage, too. – iridescent 16:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the process of compiling 159.6 barnstars for Blofeld...chuckle.Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:Kew Constabulary Cleanup

How was that a bad rewrite? You've confused me in my view my edits helped the article to come out of its confusing current state. I think it deserves better than current and has POV in it. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 15:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You posted this as I was writing an explanation on your talkpage — see that for (I hope) an explanation as to why I reverted your edit. – iridescent 15:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A query regarding vandals

Greetings Iridescent! I just noted that you left a level 4 warning for User talk:67.162.115.75. I had just reverted another edit left by this IP, and left the prior warning.

>>insert long story<< For the better part of the last nine months, I spent most of my time on vandal cleanup. I felt productive. I was happy. About a month ago, I came across a vandal-only account (about a dozen edits over a month; all vandalism). He had been warned twice already. As I reverted, I left a warning, then reported him as a vandal.

An editor (I don't even remember the name, I'm not looking it up, its not relevant, accused me of bad faith in reporting a vandal without the requisite four strikes, and that I had tagged their user page after the fact. I tried explaining: its a vandal only account (not an IP .. an account), and that editors are well within their right to report and have a vandal only account blocked without four warnings. Meanwhile, another admin blocks the account. This admin fights to get it unblocked, citing "we need to follow the rules". I tried making him see the light: I was (or at lest I thought I was). The account was unblocked, and less than a month later, it was blocked for continued vandalism. I decided to get out of the anti-vandalism business if I was going to be accused of bad faith. >>end of long story<<

The IP address that you and I recently warned had several acts of recent vandalism. I'm not talking about filing a report, but I am concerned: should warnings about those other incidents of vandalism be tagged on their page? I only say this because I was also told that part of the problem is the lack of tagging on those pages postpones blocking.

Thank you for letting me take some of your time ... I hope all is well in London ... no place like it on Earth! LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Blatant vandals aren't "entitled" minimum number of vandalisms. The 1-2-3-4 escalation ladder is to prevent users being blocked for such things as adding :) or "this is a test" to a page.

I'd personally say don't re-add the history, especially in the case of IPs, where the user today likely isn't the same user as last month. The warnings are all there in the history whether or not the page is blanked.

However, take anything I have to say with a pinch of salt, as I have very little activity in the vandal-fighting side of things. You might want to ask one of the prolific vandal-fighters such as Persian Poet Gal or Moonriddengirl, as they're likely to be more familiar with policy. – iridescent 20:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to get my head round the deletion process

Hi, I was wondering if you could point me to the deletion debate for Jim Stanton? It was proposed for deletion earlier this month and I'm intrigued to know why it survived.Jonathan Cardy (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't a deletion debate: it was proposed for deletion, which means that if nobody contests the deletion it's deleted; however, User:Norman Michael contested it, which automatically stops the process.

If you think the article should be deleted, follow these instructions to nominate the page for an AfD debate. I agree that there's a good case for deleting it at present, as the article appears more about Thomas Jefferson than about Jim Stanton himself — but be aware that there may be a much better case for cleaning the article up and keeping it, then for deleting it altogether. – iridescent 20:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

As I see you use huggle, you might consider adding Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle to your userpage. Spencer^T♦C 21:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but seeing as I'm (famously) one of Huggle's most vocal critics I'll decline the offer. When Gurch makes a Category:Wikipedians who test new releases of Huggle for faults, I'll join that... – iridescent 21:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

um, i have stopped?

I havent impersonated an admin for bout an hour now. Why do i keep receiving these warning messages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GENIUS(4th power) (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You last impersonated an admin four minutes ago. Please stop this now or you will be indefinitely blocked. – iridescent 23:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The more I see of this sort of nonsense on your talk page Iridescent the more thankful I am that my last RfA crashed and burned. Those who believed that I wouldn't have the patience to put up with that sort of crap were quite right; I wouldn't. Besides, taking a leaf out of your book, I think that adding to the sum of human knowledge is much better served by creating articles on obscure events that nobody really cares about. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The temptation to d-batch this page does get more tempting by the minute, I have to admit. I think Gwen has just discovered this, too. Incidentally, I've found the greatest article on Wikipedia, and the mission of Malleus, Lara, Keeper, Karanacs and any other GA/FA types loitering around this page is to get it to the main page. – iridescent 00:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a tough one: "The only known reference in scholarship is Tatomir Vukanović's account of his journeys in Serbia from 1933 to 1948" isn't too encouraging. I feel more naturally drawn to this. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Managing to find 11 references for Hypnodog is still one of my proudest achievements. (I did manage to get a full-size article out of a bloke with a raft once.) This is a dazzling example of "refreshing brilliant prose", too. – iridescent 01:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that I'm way out of my league here. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I hasten to add that I had nothing to do with Saint-Saturnin-lès-Apt — one of my first edits was this to one of its sister articles. Which I now notice has been reverted as "spam". Sometimes I wonder why we don't just hand the keys over to the IPs and Myspacers and have done with it. – iridescent 01:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yesterday I issue a block threat, and today this gets a block threat for admin imitation. :) giggy _(:O) 01:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I did snort when I saw this coming from you... – iridescent 01:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Malleus can probably warn you what happens when you use the word "Wikilawyer"... – iridescent 01:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly can. It's a grossly uncivil term apparently; leads to a 24-hour block. Particularly when applied to a trainee lawyer who runs a site called WikiLaw. Or was it because I told the administrator where to stick his block? Can't remember now. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Be nice - this time next month he might be in charge. (When the most sensible sounding candidate in an election is Greg Kohs, something is seriously wrong somewhere.) – iridescent 01:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he is, then it'll be in spite of my vote, not because of it. I ranked Kurt pretty highly; at least he's unlikely to just roll over and pucker up, like too many others. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually voted for Kohs, on "he won't win but a high turnout for him might give Jimbo the kick up the backside he needs to sort out some of the BLP problems" grounds. One of the reasons I tend to work on things of no interest to anyone is the sheer level of idiocy on the high-traffic articles. – iridescent 01:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I put Kurt and Kohs second and third respectively (IIRC). And Sarcasticidealist first. Clearly I'm a good for nothing WR troll. giggy _(:O) 02:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He looks like a reasonable choice. As a genetically modified contrarian I found deciding difficult though. I wanted to rank the candidates in reverse order, starting with those whose Internet access I'd like to see removed, then those I'd be prepared to consider allowing supervised Internet access, and so on, with those I had no opinion on being at the top of the pile, not the bottom. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)