User talk:Iridescent:

yay

You're back! *hugs* ... missed you -- Gurch (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wooooo! \o/ This is good news. My talk page took off in your absence. I'm on archive 3 for the month. Srsly. It must be related! :p لenna vecia 15:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably not going to be such an active page; I'm sick to death of the politics side of things, and hopefully I've been away long enough that everyone with a grudge against Huggle will go annoy someone else. – 00:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

yeah me for example :( -- Gurch (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

When they come to you with questions about Huggle, you can see why they think you might know the answer. When they come to me, it just baffles me. – 12:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

but you know everything... -- Gurch (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you're thinking of Lara. I just know how to bluff being an expert in everything. – 22:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(to LLJV) When you have 350k of posts to your talk in a single month, you can complain about your talk being too busy. – 00:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I may have met that last month. I'll check. If not, surely between the last three weeks of October and the first week of November, I will. So, are we talking "calendar months" or "rolling months"? XD لenna vecia 03:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no. Not even close. Like, far far away from close. Very far away. You win! لenna vecia 03:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Those headers in the archive box at the top of this page aren't wrong – January 2006 – October 2007, November 2007 – May 2008 and June 2008 are all the same length.

For anyone wanting to see Wikipedia at it's most foul-tempered, that June archive is a real museum piece – a nice round 100 threads exactly, in a single calendar month. It starts off with the usual adminny trivia, questions about policies and discussions of content… and then – all at more or less the same time:

Malleus goes and writes WP:WIKISPEAK;
the WP:AWC (that had better still be a redlink when I save this!) crew get somewhat unhappy at certain suggestions of mine and Sandy's that their efforts may be being misdirected;
Greg Kohs decides to run in the WMF election, with entirely foreseen consequences;
GENIUS(4th power) and his army of performing socks decide my talkpage is just the place to have their conversations;
I make an observation at WT:RFA that while an arbitrary age limit is A Bad Thing, I nonetheless won't support RFAs from anyone below the age of legal responsibility in Florida (currently 13), reigniting a debate which AFAIK hasn't stopped since;
I make the "Without content, Wikipedia is just Facebook for ugly people" comment which has haunted me ever since;
Gurch releases into the public domain some program he's been working on whose name escapes me; said program starts malfunctioning at exactly the same moment as Gurch vanishes for two weeks leaving no-one to fix it, and I set enable=false on the config page while it's discussed, with hilarious consequences.

It always makes me laugh when the perennial "why does nobody want to run at RFA any more" debate resurfaces, when the "reward" is talkpages like this and the dubious privilege of being abused of all and sundry at assorted attack sites (I am apparently "incapable of ever telling the truth"). – 16:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Your June "Pales" in comparison to my August/September. Hope you're well, I'm off again. Just logged in to figure out someone's rename (needed my watchlist). Just for laughs, BTW, I got a DYK as an IP a few weeks ago. Started the article thru the WP:AFC process, got it expanded, reffed, nommed, hooked, accepted, and mainpaged. I figured an IP would have a better reputation for article building than my admin account. :-). Later - ǀ 17:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"I wrote an article"? This account has clearly been compromised. (That rename confused the hell out of me as well, especially since she's not even from the state in question.) Just think, in 48 hours either you'll never hear the Dreaded Name again – or she'll be the highest profile woman in the world and everyone will want to hear your specialized opinions. – 17:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. You'd never believe how many "warnings" I got from Hugglers for "vandalizing" pages by expanding them, adding references, removing fart jokes, etc. Account isn't compromised, just dormant. I have thoroughly enjoyed seeing Wikipedia through IP eyes. Very different place. Very cold, actually. Of elections, this is by far one of the more interesting ones. If McPalicain wins....hmmm. McPalicain. Sounds like a really fun little drug that you pick up with your Happy Meal in the drivethru... ǀ 17:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What's interesting to me, through the unusual filter of an American living abroad so reading the foreign press, are a) how loathed McCain is by everyone in the rest of the world, even the right wing, and b) what a sorry pair both candidates appear to be. McCain comes across as the grumpy uncle every family tries to find an excuse to avoid inviting to thanksgiving, whilst Obama (in a wonderful English phrase with no equivalent I'm aware of in the US) seems to be all fur coat and no knickers. Incidentally, scroll up to the current first thread on this page for my thoughts on DYK. (You aren't the IP who's currently rewriting my baby, are you?) – 17:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of DYK, I actually just did it as a mini-challenge to see if the Wiki-elite would let a silly IP get on the mainpage. I even got the barnstar on my IP-talk, along with a well-intentioned "You should get an account so you can keep track of your barnstars!" message. The irony. It was someone who's RFA I had supported. I am a fan of writing as an IP. It's a different level of anonymity. I am a jabberjaw (duh), and I've developed a wiki-reputation as a jabberjaw. All well and good, and I am not ashamed of running a noticeboard for the benefit of other Wikipedians that really do write articles. Malleus, and the literally hundreds of (now waning) watchlisters know that I am serious about this place and I am here to help the writers. I would like to think that my talkpage serve(d) as a useful outlet to blow off steam - you certainly had your share of the fun over there :-). Every time I would try to work on an article, however, or do "non-adminny" stuff, I was getting yellow message bars. I needed to log off. RL events thankfully forced the issue. But I still love this place, and I thoroughly enjoy writing articles again. No, your "baby" is not the DYK I wrote. I wrote a new article (a bio) from scratch after getting it created for me at AFC. Cheers mate - ǀ 17:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I decided to try to find out who you are as an IP, because I wondered if I had reverted/warned you. I am roughly 90% sure that User talk:75.72.179.139 is you, but that IP doesn't have any DYKs. So I did a WHOIS. Yay! I've narrowed it down to 75.64.0.0/13 75.72.0.0/15 75.74.0.0/16 75.75.0.0/17 and/or 75.75.128.0/18. That's a total of 770,048 IP addresses. So if that is you, you're safe. 18:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, J.d, yer funny. I went back to pages I'd created/contrib'd to as an IP (there's one obscure page in particular that I go do a gnome edit on whenever I notice my IP change - clever little way to keep track of my contribs using the page history of that page). I've never edited the page logged in, so, pfffft. And no, those ranges you gave above are not correct. And no, you've never "warned" me for anything using huggle. :-) ǀ 15:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(holy unindent colon farm for Keeper's sake). Not being from the state in question is part of it, being one of my favorite songs is another. I needed a fast rename because on an awkward e-mail I got. Not cool. I like that talk-page volume wise, I fly below the admin radar. I don't need an encyclopedia on my talk, TYVM. Iri, the only think I'm bummed I forgot to save before I renamed was my ninja star and god knows which of Keeper's archives that was in. 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was on this talk page, not Keeper's here... 15:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sherlock Delanoy! You totally rock! I've been re-ninja'ed. 18:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit War???

I believe you sent an accusation of an edit war to the wrong user. Had you paid attention to my talk page, you would have noticed that it was not I who started the editing war. The user who continues to revert my edits can be seen on the Edelbrock page and my talk page. You're forgiven and thank you.

--Jabarke1 (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Was expanding on this on your own talk as you posted this. I agree you're clearly in the right here - and have warned the other editor that if he continues to abuse Huggle to bulk-revert anyone who disagrees with him he will have his automated tools removed and if necessary be blocked - but it doesn't change the fact that you're still editwarring with him; a day of The Wrong Version won't end the world, and it's not worth getting in trouble over. – 23:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well okay. Thanks Irs. Never actually knew what a 3RR was, till i got wanred. So Yikes :S. Anyways its pretty much my fault for getting him involved. My appologies. And sorry Jarbrake too. Really dont know if Huggle is my thing, i just keep messing up with it u_u :/ II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja} 23:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry... If you have this page watchlisted, you may be aware that a recurring theme is that the deliberate relaxed stability of Huggle, while it's what makes it such a powerful and useful tool, is also what makes it a very easy tool to misuse/abuse/misunderstand. I used to liken it to a machine-gun compared to the sniper-rifle of Twinkle and I think the analogy stands; both have the same effect, but one, in making things quicker, also makes things that much harder to control. My general advice with Huggle is always; unless you really need to, steer clear of using it for anything other than its original purpose of reverting obvious vandalism. Using it for more general editing not only circumvents the safeguards of Mediawiki, but makes it easy to accidentally send inappropriate warnings. Gurch will no doubt be along at some point if you want any further discussion... – 23:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for helping out here. I started the mess by wrongly reverting an IP in the Edelbrock article. Nsaa (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, I went over a month without a Huggle thread here. I knew it was too good to last. – 00:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at the bright side... The election is over. Waltham, The Duke of 23:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a horrible feeling we've not seen the last of Mrs P, though… 92.8.245.73 (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk protection

Uhh, its not permitted to protect a user talk page? Yet others have it? O.o II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja} 23:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally, no, although in extreme cases of mass multiple-account vandalism someone might make the occasonal WP:IAR brief semi-protection. (As per User:Abd, who is repeatedly harassed by the IP-hopping User:Fredrick day, for example). The whole point of talk pages is that they're for anyone to comment on. – 23:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone watching, there's currently a full debate on this issue taking place over at AN. – 16:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk header

(post moved here from the user subpage of mine on which it was left)
Hi Irid, can you please do me a favor? Since you are particularly well versed in Wiki HTML format can you please edit my talk header page? I based mine off of yours and I'm sure if you help me you can do fine with it. I'm not sure what I want, just change it so it looks neat and not totally like yours. Do not change the tables about rules or the quote of FDR I made, that's all. Alex Bieser (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No. First of all, I am not "particularly well versed in Wiki HTML format" and I have no idea where you got that impression. More to the point, whilst under GFDL you're more than welcome to use content from my (or anyone else's) user pages, I have no intention of expending any effort helping a user whose entire contribution history consists of posting incoherent original research, repeated trolling on religious articles, and a series of personal attacks on me. I have no idea – nor do I particularly care – if you're another JeanLatore sock or someone who's doing this independently, but I've no intention of encouraging you. – 16:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

--heh

Never would I have thought that someone would come to my talkpage, of all places, and summarily accuse someone else (namely, you) of being a useless myspacer. :-). Heh. Enjoy. ǀ 04:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just one of the perks of being an administrator I suppose. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Every day that passes, I am more and more tempted to create an undeclared sock just so people will stop giving me the double-treatment. One minute people take my opinion as absolute truth, the next, they (no, not the same people) are screaming at me for incivility when I call it like is. Brother, if I was uncivil, believe me, I would not go half way. You are smart, Malleus, to not run for RFA. If I didn't fight vandalism so much, I would probably resign. 04:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have an undeclared sock, with which every so often I'll make a legitimate edit to something controversial, just to gauge the levels of foul-temperedness. (My IP hops about all the time, so IP editing is almost impossible to keep track of.) One of the criticisms of Wikipedia that WR and co are 100% right about is that (especially since the decision a few months ago to give admins the new role of Civility Police) there is an us-and-them mentality between the new users and the established users (whether or not they're admins), and between the admins and non-admins. Although there's something quite endearing to be accused of Myspacing, given that at the time of writing this talkpage consists almost entirely of people I've never spoken to before complaining about me.

I think it's fair to say that, while all editors are of equal value etc etc etc, there are some from whom I'll take criticism more seriously than others, and a sockpuppet of someone recently desysopped for trolling* is not high on that list. Ah well, "Myspacing and being too keen on Huggle" makes a refreshing change from the usual complaints about me. (For the benefit of new TPSs not familiar with my history, I'm the one who shut down Huggle, and Keeper and I are probably the most high-profile "close #wikipedia-en-admins" voices aside from Giano.) – 14:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

*Yes, I know you resigned rather than be involuntarily desysopped, but you know as well as I that you jumped before you were pushed.

I'm only using this account because I'm wikibreaking the other one :-) (See its monobook.js). In any case, while you are probably right about me being desysopped, at least get the reason right. Trolling wasn't the reason. And just like you, I'll take criticism in different ways from different people. Al Tally ^talk 19:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Line under the matter, and that goes for all of you. Keeper, Majorly and I have different views on what's necessary at RFA. I do not need to waste my time with this to find that out and I'm sure none of you do either. If any of you really feel the urge to carry on this discussion, there's a perfectly good thread here. – 20:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A favour please

Hi Iridescent,

Could you please do me a favour, and not discuss me for no real reason around your various friends' talk pages? It's constantly in a negative light, and while I'm not perfect, it's kind of pointless really; I hardly get a chance to log in nowadays, and it's pretty irritating to see my watchlist with yet another attack from Iridescent on someone's talk. Please try to talk about something that doesn't involve mentioning me or attacking me, unless it's on my talk page directly confronting something I did. Otherwise, it's just bitching about me, and it seems you simply can't leave me alone, even though I'm hardly even here. If you must discuss me, do it where I can't see it (as no doubt you do).

Thanks for the consideration,

Al Tally ^talk 19:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A curious symmetry.[1] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, you miss the point completely. All that's happening here is empty repetitive attacks on myself (and Iridescent is trying to bait me into discussion by directly addressing me and linking to my RFC). I could just ignore your childish bitching, but instead I thought I'd bring it up to see if Iridescent will quit it, because it is becoming tiresome. Additionally, it doesn't help much when you act as her shadow all the time, I'm sure she's perfectly capable of making her own decisions here. Al Tally ^talk 20:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec, re to Majorly) More than happy to – do you have any examples of this? On a ctrl-f through my talk archives, the only times I've ever mentioned you on my talkpage anywhere are the thread above this, a one-line mention here in direct response to your and Kurt's squabbling on Cari's RFA (and I assume looking back you'd agree that you and Kurt were both being disruptive on that one), my replying to a particularly ridiculous accusation from Shalom that I was somehow colluding with you to block his RFA here, a notification regarding your RFC here and a brief mention in passing here – and while I won't say for certain I havent mentioned you elsewhere, as far as I know the only time I've ever mentioned you on any other page was the single mention on Keeper's talk yesterday which has set this whole thing off. As I (almost) said on Keeper's talk, I think you might be somehow mixing me up with Lara, as you're accusing me of most of the things you usually accuse her of, even when they clearly don't fit me (Huggling, Myspacing etc). – 20:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As you say, it's not just your talk page, and I have been watching it happen often. I don't accuse Lara of myspacing or Huggling, because she doesn't do it to nearly the extent you do. And a final comment, when the vast majority of your edits are Huggling/AWB/semi-automated ones, along with chatting on friends' talk pages, it amuses me to think you don't think you Myspace, when you very clearly do - though it's not to the extent of some editors who spend their entire wiki-lives building up a fancy userpage, out of every administrator, there's only a few who spend as much time as you do using User talk pages to talk to their friends.

Anyway, thanks for being helpful regarding this. I hope we can communicate again sometime, in a more positive light? I don't think you're a bad person at all, just it's very hard to get on with someone who one agrees with on almost everything :-) Al Tally ^talk 20:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

ROFL. Iridescent more MySpace than me? XD Hahahaah. I host a fuckin' social cabal. Hahahaaha... ah. Dude, that totally gave me giggles. Good times. Iridescent, let me say that I am thoroughly disappointed that your repeated (one) comments (comment, actually) among all those talk pages (Keeper's) did not include my talk page. For shame. لenna vecia 05:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

An exercise in reading comprehension

One of your socks being blocked is "the Wikipedia equivalent of Kristallnacht"? – 03:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all it was not "one of my socks." At the time I had never edited under any other name. And the reference to "Kristallnacht" aptly refers to Toddst1's summary deletion of all content in my user space. —Moulton (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Noted, and my apologies; I've struck it through and added a hidden-text comment for Brad's benefit, although I'm sure he's aware of the circumstances. – 14:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Horror

Mike Krompass. Where to begin. — Realist² 22:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, deletion as a cut & paste from Myspace, for a start… I dare say it'll be back soon enough. – 03:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

With reinforcements and a sock farm to boot! 20:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh… Speaking of socks, any uninvolved Talk Page Stalkers (particularly admins) feel the urge to weigh in on this debate, btw? – 20:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Weigh in"... as in "give my opinion" or "swing banhammer indiscriminately"? :-) 21:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the opposite; what it boils down to is, Canterberry and Lucy-marie were both Very Naughty a little over a year ago (see this and this). L-m was blocked for a short time, returned, and since then has been a perfectly good contributor (albeit with an uncanny knack for accidentally wandering into other peoples' flamewars); Canterberry was indefblocked, and when he returned under a sock account (months later, and non-disruptively) has all the "zOMG a sock!" brigade out, pitchforks in hand. Anyone uninvolved would probably be a great help, as I'm one of the few people actually on speaking terms with both so find it hard to judge (and also make no secret of believing that blocking non-disruptive socks is absolutely pointless, up to & including Kohs and his buddies). – 23:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) and off it goes to AN… – 00:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Eek for a sec I thought you meant my sock farm went to AN. Sorry I wasn't online sooner. In the mean time, my puppeter has been digging a grave for himself by immediately returning to account 1 when 2 and 3 were blocked. 04:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

Dear Iridescent,
I have a question. Is This Page breaking any rules? Can I create a list of vandalisers?? If I am allowed, Please add to the list if you have time!!
Limideen 16:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC) 12:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore for an essay on why this isn't considered by many to be a good idea. Darkspots (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What Darkspots said. Also bear in mind that IPs change – in some cases such as myself every few hours – and stalking the contributions of an IP who's made a vandal edit will likely mean you actually stalking the contributions of the good-faith user who's the next person to whom that address is allocated; this is why we don't block IPs for more than a few days (except for a few cases such as schools where we know the IP won't change). – 15:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank You. Will it be okay if people just monitor the page though? It would just be somewhere known vandals would be monitored, checking the differences of their recent edits before rollbacking? (Sorry, I wrote this before logging in) Limideen 16:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC) 16:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK there's nothing in policy against it, but I'd strongly advise against it. For one thing it gives the appearance that you're pursuing some kind of vendetta against these users; for another, it creates a "high score table" for vandals. For serious abusive accounts we already have Wikipedia:Long term abuse; for minor offenders you neither want to give vandals the recognition, nor be hassling an account that may have multiple productive contributions in addition to the occasional vandal edit. If a user has recently been warned for vandalism, then Huggle will automatically flag any edits it makes as potential problem edits, in any case.

All that said, I don't do much vandal-fighting and I don't pretend to be any kind of expert in current policy & practice – you would probably be better off asking one of the regular vandalism patrollers (I'd suggest Persian Poet Gal or J.delanoy), who will likely know more about how things currently work. – 16:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Canterberry

In view of the discussion on the UKT talk page, I've proposed that the issue be raised at WP:AN so that it can be fully debated and put to bed. Your comments appreciated on the UKT talk page. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Already there, but (as you've no doubt guessed) I agree with you. – 19:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

Thanks for your input at my successful Rfa. I'm already thinking about working on my content creation. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've !voted Support. If you have any more equally well-thought-out suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have one suggestion, which frankly you ought not to need now that your RfA has passed. Don't feel obliged to work in those areas that you don't enjoy simply to appease anyone. If there's an article or two you want to write, then fine; if there isn't, that's also fine. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd make a semi-counter suggestion – while Malleus is right in that you really shouldn't do things you don't like to "tick boxes" (I passed RFA without a single AIV report), I genuinely do believe that content is so central to virtually every significant dispute on Wikipedia, be very wary of involving yourself in content disputes (with your admin hat on). – 23:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the type to force myself to do anything I don't want to, so have no fears on that score, Malleus. Iridescent, I don't really foresee myself getting involved in content disputes, anyway. There are enough admins who are willing to step into those that I'm probably not needed. I'll stick to the parts of CAT:ADMINBACKLOG that probably won't drag me to the ArbCom.

Also, Iridescent, you'd expressed concern about my report of User:Fullyang to WP:UAA. I had actually created that account per an Account Creation request as part of my duties on the account creation team. I didn't notice until after I'd created it that the e-mail address was using the Fullyang.com domain name. Do you still think the UAA request was wrong? I'd like to hear your thoughts.--Aervanath lives in 03:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"be very wary of involving yourself in content disputes (with your admin hat on)" Ha. The problem with content disputes is not "putting your admin hat on". The problem is, it's impossible to take your admin hat off during a content dispute (or anything else for that matter). You'll either get one side using your opinion to prove that they are right (even if you very clearly state that it is your opinion, not absolute fact), or you'll get yelled at for being "unfair" or "uncivil". Hell, as an admin, you can't even accidentally revert one of the sides in a dispute while fighting vandalism without getting 3000 bytes of text smeared across your talk page. Like I know (or care) what our page about Bill O'Reilly's controversies says. As long as it's not blatant libel, I'm good. We are definitely not going to change anyone's opinion about him, good or bad. 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(to Aervanath) With that information, while I still think it was wrong – there was nothing to indicate that the account intended to work on an article about the company – it does put it in a different light, and it certainly makes reporting it justifiable (I suspect I'd be in a minority in not blocking it). My "needs content experience" oppose would still stand (although I hope you'll prove me wrong), but I certainly wouldn't have "escalated" it on the basis of that UAA report in light of this. – 20:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Pre-vet me?

Iridescent,

Now that I've qualified for a WP:CROWN, I'm considering an RfA, mostly so I don't need to bug other people to block vandals, but also to help out with the housekeeping. Since I hear your vote is a great predictor of RfA success, I'd like to hear your thoughts on my potential candidacy--In other words, I'm inviting you to be a one-person pre-RfA and save me and Wikipedia the effort of a failed RfA if you don't think I have what it takes. Interested? Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply (long version)

I personally wouldn't see any problems with you, although I rarely comment at RFA (no, really). If you have any skeletons in your closet (flamewars, anything that a single non-nuts person could perceive as rudeness, arguing in favour of a really bad cause…) make sure you declare them at the time you accept your RFA nom; they will be uncovered, and if you haven't mentioned them it looks like you're hiding something.

If you're planning to run an RFA, now is probably the time to do it. The aftermath of DHM's RFA has (still) 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.

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 that you're able to point to unequivocally and say "I did that" (otherwise, you'll fall apart on the "what are your best contributions" question). Huggle use will gain you some opposes; 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.

As a content writer you'll avoid a lot of automatic and semi-automatic opposes and as an AIV regular you'll avoid more. I believe that you were involved in the Sarah Palin Wars, so you'll pick up a few opposes from that, but AFAIK there's nothing else problematic, and two years service with no particular screwups should mean even sworn enemies who come to your RFA set on finding an excuse for opposing (RFA shouldn't work that way, but as Malleus can tell you it does) will find it hard to find a reason. (The "waiting for a chance to oppose" RFA-watchers are one of the less appealing aspects of the already unappealing RFA setup; expect a batch of "Oppose, don't agree with his userboxes" opposes or similar silliness within minutes of it going live. While the crats discount these, it's disheartening watching the Oppose column shoot up in the early stages of an RFA, as the opposers tend to say their piece at the start while the supporters generally drift through over five days.)

And (although it sounds obvious, you'd be surprised how many even very experienced people don't) 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), as someone always decides to pull people up on any perceived departure from Wiki-orthodoxy You don't have to agree with the ~~cabal~~ broad consensus, but you need to justify deviations from it.

While the "content creation is the most important factor" group (among which I'd include myself)seems to currently be in the ascendancy, there is a strong and extremely vocal opposing camp. Some of them might read this and comment here; in the meantime, familiarise yourself with RFAs like Karanacs's and Moni3's to get a feel for the sort of opposes a nomination based on a content-contribution history is likely to get in the current climate.

As I know you know, but it warrants repeating, while WP:DEAL is no longer accurate, adminship 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 crackpot with a complaint, you'll find what personal details can be unearthed about you spread across a variety of dubious websites, and you'll use your new buttons a lot less than you thought (see my old block log — while it's now skewed from testing Huggle block functions in assorted permutations and at assorted settings, in the six months leading up to that I performed maybe a dozen blocks). Plenty of the most influential people on Wikipedia (Giano, SandyGeorgia, Gurch, Malleus, Giggy…) aren't admins.

If you want a nomination, I'm more than happy to write you one, but it might be better coming from someone you've done more work with, and possibly someone with a less divisive reputation than me at RFA. I see Balloonman on your talkpage, who has a pretty good track record at judging RFA nominees (with a few - ahem - unusual calls); Keeper76 has semi-retired but can usually be winkled out of his burrow if you use a long enough stick, and as one of the leading lights of the "content creation isn't important" school of thought would counterbalance a "hey, look at all my articles!" candidate; J.delanoy might also be quite a good nominator for similar reasons.

Thank you for a thorough bit of advice. So, here's my self-appraisal per your criteria:

I've had a couple of fundamentally mutually antagonistic relationships with two editors who have both sinde departed: Hrafn, who consistently tried to suppress Unification Church articles as NN, and Tautologist, who was part of the Sarah Palin wars. After some rather contentious interactions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Kaufmann, I voluntarily quit interacting with Hrafn or those sets of articles, and he later retired. I interacted with Tautologist, who started as EricDiesel, only in the context of the religion-related articles surrounding the Palin wars, most notably Thomas Muthee and Wasilla Assembly of God. He later vanished after I got him blocked for Sockpuppetry. Those are really the only two substantially antagonistic relationships I've had, although I have had occasional nominators take exception to me pointing out WP:BEFORE at AfD. Oh, and Shii has a hate-on for everything related to Babylon 5, but I keep responding by adding sources, so I'm not sure that any of the anti-fiction faction really have any good reason to oppose me.
My interactions in the Sarah Palin wars were pretty limited--when AfD's for tangentially connected religious institutions and figures proved unsuccessful, I sat on them and tried to keep them coatrack and non-RS free. After Tautologist's departure, the remaining editors on each article have worked substantially collaboratively, and both Thomas Muthee and Wasilla Assembly of God are GA candidates.
My work affiliation can be uncovered in a thorough review, and I'm 100% COI free.
I've been reported (without basis) for 3RR once, by Tautologist, but never been blocked or formally warned for anything. I've made a ton of goofs, inlcuding initially with Huggle, but never had a problem admitting and reverting a screwup when one was pointed out to me.
Other than that, I think my track record generally shows me learning--I've made about every newbie mistake once. If you recall, my first interaction with you stemmed from my not understanding CSD and your decline.

At any rate, I'll hit up Keeper and Balloonman and point them here, per your advice. Thanks again for the detailed and conscientious response. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

More than welcome… I don't think anyone's going to hold any mistake against you unless it's very recent (although someone no doubt will), provided you realise it's a mistake. (IIRC my first interaction with you was a truly arcane discussion of whether Myspace could ever be treated as a reliable source; if that's the worst of your mistakes, even the most diehard oppose-anyone brigade will be hard pressed to find anything.) Something I forgot to say which wouldn't hurt, is to have a look at your analyses on Wikichecker and Wannabekate, to identify your most edited pages (on Wikichecker scroll down to "frequently edited pages" to see them) – which often aren't what you think – and review your histories on said pages, as those will be the ones the RFA crowd are likely to look at most closely. – 22:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If Iridescent thinks your up to the job then that's a support off me from the outset. ;=) — Realist² 00:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(To Jclemens) So that's what happened to EricDiesel! I did wonder why he vanished from this talkpage as quickly as he appeared…

Yeah, EricDiesel renamed and picked up again on the Palin/Religion articles almost immediately, and did not disclose his name change. Keeper's prediction came true, despite everyone's efforts to get Eric/Tautologist clued in to how to work collaboratively, he seems to have given up. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I should feel sorry, but I'm not really. Although it's blasphemy against our core principles – and I personally never had any particular problem with him – I think sometimes it's better for all concerned when editors who don't "get it" about how Wikipedia works leave the project in disgust; it saves them wasting time writing things that will just be reverted, and saves us time cleaning up the mess. Yes, everyone has a deleted article in their early history – when you pass that RFA you can marvel at the dismalness that was mine – but some people just don't seem to pick up on the wikipedia dialectic. – 01:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(to Realist2) Hmmm… Don't take anything I say at RFA as gospel! While I can and do defend every oppose I've made (see previous threads ad nauseam), I've certainly supported some characters whom I've later regretted supporting, including at least one for whom I'd instantly support a WP:DESYSOP request were the process ever to become enforceable. To harp on a well-worn theme, part of the reason I tend towards "if you're not sure, say no" at RFA is the all-or-nothing character – in the entire history of Wikipedia, there have been a grand total of 46 admins desysopped involuntarily (plus some who resigned voluntarily). Yes, I know we have the current system because nobody can think of a better alternative, but "least worst" doesn't mean "good". – 00:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply (short version)

Unless you've a spectacular skeleton in your closet, I don't see any reason why you'd fail. – 20:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

EliasAlucard

What's this about? [2] Is the user returning under a new name? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I posted that at the request of GRBerry as it's a protected page and GRB is currently (voluntarily) desysopped, so I don't know the full details; you'd need to ask GRB about it. 15:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ignore the above, just noticed your discussion on GRB's talk. 15:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Iridescent

Contents

yay